You know, I've been on DU for sixteen years...

[MrScorpio]

Going on 69,000 posts on this site. And way back when I started, I used to write some pretty shady shit. Hell, a lot of us did. We definitely weren't saints back then. We were rude, profane, even sexually aggressive... ON THIS VERY SITE!

Some us offered some opinions that weren't popular back then on quite a number of sensitive subjects... And I can say that I even said shit back then that I wouldn't say today. Why? Because I changed my mind, I matured and I was convinced by some of you that I needed to change my mind.

But does that even matter? Well, you know what? Who gives a fuck?. Seriously.

So when I read about some shit that Joy Ann Reid may or may not have written so far back, in some obscure blog that none of us ever read ten fucking years ago, I have to say again, "Who gives a fuck?"

Why wasn't this shit outed five or six years ago? Or why wasn't it outed when she earned her place as one of the hosts on MSNBC? You wanna know why? Because nobody gave a fuck back then.

But people are giving a fuck now, people with definite agendas to take down one of the most effective progressive voices for the truth today. A voice of a black woman, who are ALWAYS the first to be attacked in this country, no matter what. As far as I'm concerned, none of these smears against her should be trusted. Simply because I ask that age old question, "What has she done for us lately?" And we all know the answer there.

Shit from ten years ago has little relevance to who she is today. The people who know her today, gay, straight or otherwise, know who she is today. And they all stand by her side in solidarity.

If anything, what's happening is pretty freaking obvious:

This is nothing more than payback for the backlash against real reprehensible fuck nuggets like Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham. And these same people know full well that if they throw one of ours to the wolves, we'll do the job of destroying them in a feeding frenzy. It's been done before and we're doing it right now. All that has to be done is to exploit our own abundant sense of righteous indignation.

Usually I try to stay away from the infighting and for the most part, and I have. But for me, attacking Joy Ann Reid is a bridge too far.

We're in a fight against some real devious bastards... So, frankly, this is the wrong time, once again, to shoot ourselves in our own feet. I'd rather have Joy Ann Reid on our side in this fight, because I know, as do most of you, that we really can't afford to push her under the bus over some irrelevant bullshit that had to dig up from ten fucking years ago. All done by people who don't have any of our interests at heart above their own.

And what has Glenn Greenwald or John Aravosis done for any of us lately?

Anybody?

[ProfessorGAC]

1. Kick and Rec

I'm with you Scorpio.

[Roy Rolling]

83. I Hear Ya

And it brings up the larger issue we are loathe to face: how can we reconcile past unacceptable behavior by today's standards, and are some lines that shouldn't be crossed now being used to limit freedom of speech rather than liberate us?

[superpatriotman]

2. I've been here since Gore v. bush

Pay no attention to the post counts

[GreenEyedLefty]

41. Same here, except I changed my user name in 2006.

I have posted more in the last year than I ever did before.

[Drifter]

50. Roger that

Same here

Cheers
Drifter

[bigbrother05]

70. Lurked here after the Horse went down and Democrats.com didn't fill the space

Finally surfaced in 05 while overseas and couldn't hold back re: W anymore.

As others have noted, really started posting more lately because this is too much.

Also, Mrs. BB05 doesn't need to hear all my rants unfiltered.

[Spider Jerusalem]

3. I wouldn't care if she'd owned it and apologised...

instead of coming up with some bizarro "I was hacked" excuse that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The way she chose to respond to it has severely damaged whatever credibility she had, since credible investigations of her claims re "hacking" have found that they don't hold water; as they said about Watergate, "it's not the crime, it's the cover-up".

[GoCubsGo]

13. Why do you say that her excuse is "bzarro"?

Even Malcolm Nance said n Wednesday that it was quite possible, if not likely that she was ratfucked. I think he would know about that kind of thing.

[Spider Jerusalem]

17. Because her blog is in multiple archives with archival timestamps of over a decade ago.

Because the posts in question that were called out are in those archives. Because I've written a blog, and know how a blog dashboard works, and I find it very implausible that someone who was maintaining an active blog would fail to notice that there were posts they had not themselves written on their dashboard. Because one of the posts in question was quoted and linked to from DU, way back in 2007. Because Reid has a long history of making casual homophobic and transphobic comments (on Twitter and elsewhere), some of which she's owned up to and apologised for, and these blog posts are not uncharacteristic in light of her other and similar comments.

And also because of credible investigations of her hacking claims, here and here.

[OneGrassRoot]

31. Has Joy herself put out any statements about this?

There's so much content out there now that a search isn't that simple. You seem to be keeping a close eye on these events.

I know her cybersecurity guy has put out statements that have been shredded by some segments of the Internet. Not sure who announced it, but the word is that the FBI has been brought in.

This conversation is, to me, eerily similar to the gun discussions. Terminology gets in the way and it's often used as an intentional tool to derail.

People who are knowledgeable about IT matters say it's quite easy to fake the date of when something was posted; one can create a post via hacking and make the date reflect whatever date you want.

But, as in gun conversations, this gets into the weeds and takes us away from the main point. Again, I think that's often by design.

I think Joy is too smart to bring in the FBI if she were telling a lie.

Another aspect of this I haven't seen anyone mention is this: For those of us who have created blogs and generated comments and posts on multiple sites and platforms over the last 10 years, not only would they not necessarily reflect who we are now but would we truly recall every single thing we wrote -- especially if we wrote something that didn't result in comments and scrutiny? (The fact that the blogs being unearthed had no comments seems fishy to many.)

What if they were drafts, never published (or intended to be published)? I'm sure I have drafts along the way that I never cleaned up because I haven't always been diligent. I doubt I'd remember what I wrote 10 years ago or, heck, even 5 or 3 years ago, and my thinking now could be quite different than my thoughts then.

While I believe that she strongly believes she didn't write the newly revealed blogs (again, calling in the FBI isn't a trivial step), I also can't stop thinking that if I were in her shoes, my first reaction would be to think that I have zero recollection of having written those, but there's also a chance I simply forgot since it was so long ago and it got no attention. I wouldn't be lying.

But an investigation is taking place and I'll wait until that's done to reserve judgment. I support Joy for a multitude of reasons and will continue to do so. The only reason I wouldn't is if she knowingly went through this elaborate ruse, including bringing in the FBI, knowing full well she wrote something she's denying she wrote.

There are too many technical unknowns right now, even though -- as always -- lay experts are coming out of the woodwork, chiming in, trying to make anyone who doesn't use the same terminology feel stupid and thus unqualified to have an opinion.

[Spider Jerusalem]

34. She's made no comments

but the blog posts themselves are in the Internet Archive and also the Library of Congress Archive with archival timestamps shortly after their original post dates (within hours or days in most cases). The way a web archive works: it takes a snapshot of the page as it exists at that time. The site may be crawled again later, and another snapshot taken; if any changes have occurred, they will be visible by comparing the later snapshot. The fact that these blog posts were archived shortly after their posting dates indicates that they have been there since the blog was active. It's highly unlikely that Reid herself did not write them. (And if she or her lawyer called in the FBI, they fucked up big time.)

[OneGrassRoot]

37. I fully recognize you and others are absolutely convinced these are the facts.

I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Some of us will reserve judgment; others, obviously not so much. The aggressiveness with which some are hitting this story is curious, to say the least.

For you, personally, were you not fond of Joy Reid's work prior to this story? Were you not very familiar with her?

While I realize there are various reasons for people convinced she's guilty (and diligently commenting thusly), I'm curious why you have zero doubt? Is it because you are listening to certain IT experts and they have a certain opinion (even though other experts have a contrary opinion)?

Or is it something you have disliked about Reid all along and feel she shouldn't have the platform she has?

[Spider Jerusalem]

49. I was largely indifferent? I knew her from Twitter.

I've lived in the UK for a decade. I don't watch MSNBC (or TV news, generally); I keep up with US political news via DU, the Guardian, the BBC, the Washington Post, NYT, Daily Beast, Vox, etc.

I'm 100% convinced that she wrote those posts, because the evidence from various web archives is incontrovertible, and the idea that she was hacked, and unaware, and that posts she did not herself author appeared on an actively maintained blog without being noticed, is not credible. And I am also aware of her personal history of making casually homophobic and transphobic comments, on Twitter and also in her blog; she apologised for some of those comments, this past December, and these new blog posts are not out of character when considered in the light of things she's admitted to and said elsewhere. I would not have a problem if she had said "mea culpa, yes, I said those things, it was over a decade ago, and along with many other Americans, I have grown and evolved on this issue, and I sincerely apologise for the things I said then and any hurt my words may have caused"...but, she went straight to "I was hacked", which is not plausible in light of the evidence.

[OneGrassRoot]

54. Okay, thank you for the reply. n/t

[Larrybanal]

200. the point most are making

is who really cares? I could not care less that you are 100% convinced...people change...even jerusalem changes and for the worse

[OilemFirchen]

214. "incontrovertible"

[Spider Jerusalem]

215. Yep.

Incontrovertible. Along with the fact that one of the posts in question was linked on DU in 2007.

[OilemFirchen]

217. "incontrovertible"

[OhNo-Really]

51. The effn world is imploding, surely we have more pressing news then this story. move on!

[HenryWallace]

150. Sadly, that's the point of the MSM rage machine.

We are not supposed to move on to more important issues...

[Leith]

73. Why Are You Pushing So Hard Against Joy?

Posters here are not like trumpanzees or disinterested people out there in TV land. You keep pushing the same tired arguments against someone we have known and trusted for years. It wouldn't take even a casual lurker very long to wonder when Johnny is going to quit hitting his one note.

It looks like a beautiful spring day (partly cloudy, 9 degrees). I hope you got to enjoy some of it.

[Spider Jerusalem]

87. I dunno, calling something you don't like "fake news" belies your argument, I'd say.

[Maraya1969]

99. I did a search and that person has a bunch of anti-Joy Reid posts in the last few days.

Edit to add: There are at least 80 posts just from the last couple days when this came out. All of them are anti-Joy

[Leith]

104. Yeah, I Know

The funniest part is when "certain posters" ask how we can tell when a poster is fake.

heh heh... As if...

[Spider Jerusalem]

105. Yeah, and?

This is a heavily discussed topic here, recently, about which I have an opinion. (Feel free to search the rest of my posting history, if you want.)

[Stonepounder]

122. Just a couple of points:

1. Folks who actually read her blog back in the day say they have absolutely NO memory of her posting anything like that.
2. And here's the real kicker for me, not a single one of the posts have a single comment. LGBT was a hot-button issue back then just as it is today and it beggars credulity that no one would have responded in any way to these so-called posts. And some of the posts were supposedly posted on Huffington as well as her blog.

[Spider Jerusalem]

123. One of those posts was quoted and linked to from DU in 2007.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x48020

[LAS14]

235. Any chance this is a product of the election night DU hack? Were...

...there replies to this post? That is, did it produce a thread?

[melman]

240. Yes there's a thread

In fact, one of the admins of the site posted in it.

[Eliot Rosewater]

127. Joy is a POWERFUL voice AGAINST Vladmir Putin, Donald Trump and yes, Bernie Sanders

so expect an AVALANCHE of hate and LIES about her.

[Leith]

140. Yeah...

She is. Strong, intelligent, willing to tell the truth, great in front of the camera.

The poor trolls don't seem to be having much luck here. A couple of them have even asked how we can spot them so easily. <*snicker!*>

Okay, trollskis: go back to gaslighting trumpanzees. We don't worship personalities here, we believe in ideals and we honor those who believe the way we do - Joy Ann Reid and Al Franken, to give you 2 examples. Many of us used to feel the same way about Bernie Sanders, but he no longer seems to espouse the same ideals.

trumpanzees worship who they are told to worship: tRump, Ross Perot, GWB, Fox Propaganda people, etc. We do not. Trolls can't convince us our ideals are wrong because we prefer factual information, not preaching and repetition.

[Eliot Rosewater]

141. I agree with every word you said. But saying it is another thing.

I simply want to be an UNCONDITIONAL SUPPORTER of ONLY and ALL democrats.

My support is unconditional ONLY because of the GRAVE GRAVE situation we are in and that will change when we have the luxury of picking apart individual representatives for whatever it is they are doing we dont like.

[Leith]

147. I Agree

This is no time for purity tests. rethugs are at war and they will follow anyone their masters tell them to follow.

I've told fellow DUers before that if a candidate checks off most of the important boxes, s/he gets my vote. This is no time to rebel because of one's own pet cause. Doing that means that the voter has abandoned millions of others who need help, too.

[calimary]

241. Yeah. Wish it didn't have to be that way, but it IS.

We all have been debating and arguing for years about the perfect versus the merely good. I lean toward the latter because I tend toward being more practical these days. Going with what CAN be done as opposed to what one believes OUGHT TO be done. It’s not perfect and it flunks the purity test. Heidi Heitkamp comes to mind. But, heck, it’s another “D” on the scoreboard. And any way you look at it, even having to hold your nose to do it, you’ve gotta vote for a “D”. Even the worst “D” is way better than the most tolerable “R”.

It comes down to one thing, I’m afraid. Winning. You have to win.
Because:
If you don’t win, you don’t get to run the show.
If you don’t win, you don’t get to set the agenda.
If you don’t win, you don’t get to chair the committees and control what they investigate.
If you don’t win, you don’t wield the subpoena power in all those committees.
If you don’t win, somebody on the other team gets to be Speaker of the House or Senate Majority Leader.
If you don’t win, Devin Nunes gets to make the big decisions and you have nothing to say about it.
And the list goes on. Yeah, I like perfect also. Often it reflects my preferences on the issues. But if it can’t get enough votes to win, it’s a waste, regardless how noble the intent. Based on everything thing I’ve seen, heard, and read, there are more votes to be had in and around the political middle. I’m guessing that’s because you’re more likely flip potential defectors from the other side - enough to secure a majority. And that’s the win.
First you’ve gotta win. Before you can start making repairs, renovations, and other changes, you’ve gotta get in the door.
You’ve gotta win.

[HenryWallace]

173. Well, she certainly wasn't until her employer told her to be...

[link:|]

Just like she was virulently against Clinton in 2008...

[Hassin Bin Sober]

218. Yep

Link to tweet

?s=20

[TheSmarterDog]

149. So, you have more expertise than the guy with 35 yrs counter-intel exp under his belt

And had pretty much the exact same this happen to him 2 yrs ago?

[Spider Jerusalem]

154. The claims of Reid's neo-Nazi affiliated "security expert" fell apart under examination

https://www.thedailybeast.com/claims-by-joy-reids-cybersecurity-expert-fall-apart?ref=scroll

and citation needed, for claims of whoever this is you're talking about having "this exact same thing" happen (including proof that faked blog posts or other writings with a fake timestamp were created and then inserted into multiple independent web archives with dates that correlated with their supposed publication).

[TheSmarterDog]

160. So, you're denying knowing who Malcolm Nance is?

[mvd]

116. I hope she's right about the hacking

If not, that just makes her look worse. I have posted a couple things I regretted before, but always later admitted I was wrong. Joy could certainly have changed for the better. But I wish she would denounce such comments. Also I don't always agree with her about the progressive wing of our party, but she does a good job on Trump.

[TheSmarterDog]

142. I'm sure you're holding your breath waiting for Glen Greenward to apologize.

[Spider Jerusalem]

146. Greenwald is a scumbag.

And a useful idiot for Russia, downplaying the whole Trump/Russia issue. I have no use whatever for Glenn Greenwald. (Which doesn't mean I am automatically going to be a fan of Joy Reid; I don't watch MSNBC, because I've lived in the UK for a decade and it isn't available here, and I don't watch TV news anyway, because I know how to read.)

[TheSmarterDog]

153. But he's one of your sources. Why the double standard?

You're eager to believe every last bit of crap Greenwald puts out, without bothering to vet it & understand where it's coming from & totally dismissing his nefarious agenda - but anything supporting Reid's claims is automatically suspect. Do you know how utterly pathetic that seems?

[Spider Jerusalem]

155. He's not one of my sources.

I invite you to look at my posts; not once have I cited Greenwald, or linked to him. I have no idea what he's saying.

[TheSmarterDog]

161. Now you're just being disengeneous, at best.

Deceptive at worst. Glen Greenwald is one of the original sources for this story. And all of his baggage comes along with it.

Which you don't really care about.

[Spider Jerusalem]

164. I only became aware of it because of the DU shitstorm.

And went and read the Washington Post's blog on the issue, and then went and looked at the Internet Archive at the blog posts in question, and saw the timestamps, and the Twitter feed they were posted to, and saw that the screenshots matched what was on the archive, and drew the conclusion from that that the claim of "hacking" was absurd and nonsensical, and contradicted by readily available evidence (or at least, evidence that was readily available at the time; whoever manages Reid's defunct blog added a robots.txt to exclude the Internet Archive, thus removing it from that archive, which does not look particularly innocent; however it exists in Internet Archive mirrors, and the Library of Congress archive). I am quite capable of reviewing information and drawing my own conclusions, and my conclusion is the same one that Reid's erstwhile employers at the Daily Beast came to after their review: the "hacking" claims are implausible at best, and fabricated at worst.

I wouldn't care if Reid owned her words and apologised; claiming "I was hacked!" when the readily available evidence (including one of the posts in question being quoted on, and linked to from, DU in 2007) does not help her credibility elsewhere.

[TheSmarterDog]

168. Then I would say you're negligent & haven't done your research.

It's your job as a consumer of information to find out the source of any assertions that are made.

Most people don't do that - but then most people a lazy fucks.

When it's coming from Breitbart, Fox News, Wikileaks, The Intercept or any number of other RW, fascist, crypto-fascist or even just common every-day conservative sources, then that information is automatically suspect. No matter how many times it gets laundered through seemingly legitimate websites.

You just walked by The Atlantic on laundry day.

What's really implausible is for the supposed security experts at the Internet Archive to claim absolutely 100% without a doubt that they weren't hacked, and could not BE hacked. That's simply a lie.

If it's on the Internet, then it's vulnerable to getting hacked. Period. That's what's called a truism.

The fact is that you've accepted that lie with absolutely no question or hesitation. And you're ready to do the RW's work for them and crucify Reid over it. For a lie.

[HenryWallace]

178. Dude....

Go off this site....

Turn off MSNBC.....

.... Her hacking "story" is being ripped apart!


___________________

We pride ourselves on rationality; who is going to spend this kind of energy and money to discredit a weekend anchor?

[TheSmarterDog]

180. No, it's hasn't.

I prefer not to be a RW tool & actually take steps to learn the facts of a particular situation before I generate an opinion. This situation stinks of a set-up.

[HenryWallace]

189. And there are more....

[link:https://www.thedailybeast.com/claims-by-joy-reids-cybersecurity-expert-fall-apart/|]


[link:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/joy-reid-blog-post-hacking_us_5ae0ae7ee4b02baed1b593b6|]


[link:https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/04/the-evidence-is-not-with-joy-reid/558935/?utm_source=atltw|]


I fear we are discussing not what you believe, but what you prefer to believe!

[Spider Jerusalem]

181. The source of the assertions doesn't matter, only their veracity.

And researching in primary sources (which would be: Reid's archived blog posts from over a decade ago, which exist on the Internet Archive, and in the Library of Congress archive, which is hosted on a separate server) leads me to the inescapable conclusion that yes, she said those things; she is not telling the truth when she claims she was hacked (because the claims of her bogus "cybersecurity expert" fail to stand up to scrutiny).

[TheSmarterDog]

187. The original source's veracity is shit, Joy Reid's is not. That's your problem.

And it's something you can't get around or dismiss.

[Spider Jerusalem]

190. The "original source" is Reid's own blog?

Archived over a decade ago with at least one post contemporaneously linked to from DU. That's the "original source". That's the only source I'm considering in evaluating this. And examining the archives of that blog, and the dates of archival, leads to the inescapable conclusion that those posts were on that blog when it was active, and appeared between 2005 and 2009. Any claims of "hacking" thus fall apart, unless someone was surreptitiously altering existing posts and creating fake ones at the time Reid was maintaining the blog, which is extremely implausible.

[TheSmarterDog]

192. The original source is an anonymous Twitter user.

If you didn't even know that, you're hopeless.

[Spider Jerusalem]

193. Nope, the original source is Reid's blog.

Please go and learn what "primary sources" are and then get back to me.

[TheSmarterDog]

204. If that's your answer, then you really have no clue what a chain of evidence is.

And you should keep your uninformed opinions to yourself - because they're really not your opinions at all, are they? They're the opinions of people who are not & have never been friends of Democrats, liberals & progressives.

[Spider Jerusalem]

210. I am quite aware, thanks.

And I am also quite aware that Reid's claims of "hacking" are completely unsupported by the posts her "cybersecurity expert" called into question very clearly being archived at the time and not more recently. Again, those claims have been examined, and found wanting. See here: https://www.thedailybeast.com/claims-by-joy-reids-cybersecurity-expert-fall-apart?ref=home?ref=home?ref=home

Address the facts, if you can; so far, you have failed to do so. You have assertions, insults, and insinuations, not a bit of it supported by fact.

[TheSmarterDog]

212. Sadly, your posts indicate otherwise.

Including this one.

[Spider Jerusalem]

213. Not at all.

If you can provide a plausible explanation for the existence of these blog posts in multiple archives with archival dates contemporary with their original posting, over a decade ago, that involves "hacking", please do so; the evidence (including the evidence of one of those posts being quoted from and linked to, on DU, in 2007) is against the claim of "hacking". And if you can provide a plausible and credible explanation for how someone maintaining an active blog failed to notice posts they themselves did not author appearing on that blog, please do that, as well, because it's the only explanation that would be consistent with the "hack" claim.

[TheSmarterDog]

222. The verified provenance of the posts in question goes back no further than Apr 18 of this year

When "Jamie Maz" claimed to "discover" them. The only assurance we have that they were in in Internet Archive is from the Internet Archive themselves - with the claim that their systems are unhackable. A claim which is laughably untrue, since everything connected to the Internet is hackable . Plus the fact that they cannot guarantee authenticity of the data they provide.

Of course, the Internet Archive could clear this whole thing up if they just provided access to the secure archive backup of the data stream they had received at the time the posts were allegedly made.

Unfortunately, given their description of their method of gathering data - recording the live or nearly-live stream as it happens, then making it available to their users - this is not something they actually have. IOW The Archive doesn't actually archive their data. IF THEY DID THEY WOULD HAVE SAID SO. They didn't. So given no other info, we can assume they use a standard 3-2-1 backup regime. Robust & reliable, but totally useless for recovering data previous to the current backup cycle.

So, here's the scenario:

2006-2010 Joy happily does her blog. Her posts regularly receive several replies, and are also regularly remembered by both her many fans and her many detractors. The Internet Archive dutifully records and verifies the data stream & saves it. The offending posts are nowhere to be found. Nobody saw them, her editors didn't read them, there were no replies to them.

2014 Joy is hired by MSNBC (including an extensive vetting process, I'm sure, where the offending posts were not found a second time. At least).

2016 Joy offends the worshipers of a certain non-Democratic politician, the politician's spouse insists Reid is unfair & biased. The worshipers vow to "get back" at Reid.

2017 "Jamie Maz" "discovers" one true blog post from 2007 which some correctly find offensive. Joy correctly apologizes.

~late 2017-Apr 2018 persons unknown insert the posts in question into the already-verified data saved from Reid's blog.

Apr 2018 The posts in question are subsequently "discovered" by "Jamie Maz". ""Maz" provides no information about themselves, their methods or procedures, or their goals or objectives. They are totally anonymous. And of course the Internet Archive cannot detect the tampering, because as far as they can determine the data was verified by their own systems.

And that's just the way the nefarious people ratfucking us like it.

In response, the people who are not & have never been friends of Democrats, liberals & progressives, go batshit crazy attacking Joy Reid.

How's that?

[Spider Jerusalem]

223. They're also in the Library of Congress archive.

Which is hosted on a separate server. And her supposed "expert" says he's not claiming that the Internet Archive or any other web archive was tampered with.

[TheSmarterDog]

224. Do you know where the LoC got their archive? From the Internet Archive.

You really don't understand any of this shit, do you?

[Spider Jerusalem]

225. Probably better than you do? What part of "it's hosted on a separate server" can you not parse?

Either a nefarious person out to smear Joy Reid hacked multiple servers and her blog to do so (by posting things that are remarkably consistent with other things she has admitted to writing, no less!) or she wrote the posts and the whole "hack" thing is made up. If you want to believe in the existence of a wide-ranging conspiracy theory, that's your lookout, I suppose. But it doesn't stand up to rational analysis.

[TheSmarterDog]

226. And you don't understand data on servers can be copied.

Or even the basics about how networked computer systems work.

So, no you don't know this stuff better than I do. You've provided ample proof of that.

[Spider Jerusalem]

227. Except, again, one of the supposedly "hacked" posts...

was quoted from and linked to on DU in 2007. Contemporary evidence for one post is strong evidence that the other posts are not, in fact, fakes created at a later date, given the similarity of tone (and the existence of archived versions of posts claimed by Reid's bogus "expert" to've been the result of "screenshot manipulation" is more evidence).

[TheSmarterDog]

228. Which wasn't the same post as the ones "Maz" "discovered".

The one on DU had several replies, didn't it.

But that doesn't matter because the Internet Archive cannot guarantee authenticity of their data.

[Spider Jerusalem]

230. Yeah, it was, in fact.

It was among the screenshots.

[LAS14]

236. Could the DU post be part of the hack? Did it produce a thread? nt

[Spider Jerusalem]

238. No and yes (n/t)

[Tipperary]

4. I do not care what she said years ago, but if it turns out she is lying about it,

that would bother me more.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

201. Precisely! Though I've yet to see convincing evidence that Joy IS lying about being hacked, so

I'll continue to give her the benefit of the doubt on that.

[leftofcool]

5. I don't have a fuck left to give over something as stupid as this

I know who is behind it, I know who is enabling it and I know who is calling on MSNBC to fire Joy. Not one of those people are worth any of my fucks.

[elehhhhna]

16. Doesn't MSNBC still employ lying Brian Williams? Wtf?

[oasis]

82. MSNBC also employs Mike Barnicle, who was forced to resign from the

Boston Globe after he misled them about his plagiarism.

[Zoonart]

24. Well said.

[Rorey]

36. Yes

Not mine either.

[Eliot Rosewater]

128. I like this response.

[happy feet]

242. +1111

[Maeve]

6. There are many of us who wouldn't want some of our old posts to be revisited

We've said things out of anger or ignorance that don't represent our better natures or our better judgment. We've also had people lie about or misconstrue what we've said--very easy to do on-line.

[Spider Jerusalem]

9. I dunno, if you have a years-long comment history of casual homophobia...

then that's probably indicative of something deeper, honestly. (I have over 20K posts here; there isn't anything in my very long comment history just on this site that I'd be especially ashamed of, and certainly nothing like Reid's comments.)

[kcr]

43. Wow. If only we could all aspire to such posting perfection.

Amazing.

[Spider Jerusalem]

52. I don't know, "not being casually homophobic" seems like a low bar (n/t)

[rzemanfl]

7. K&R. I am going to steal "real rephrensible fuck nuggets."

I was an internet pal of the late Annette Apollo (oldleftielawyer, TangerineLaBamba) she most certainly did not give a fuck when she posted here.

[dalton99a]

20. +1

[hlthe2b]

8. We've all posted things we probably regret but largely under cover of anonymity...

and quite frankly, I'd bet a lot of minds have been changed with the discourse. I remember when Obama was being put through the ringer here because he was not YET at the point of full support for gay marriage... I think a lot of posters here evolved, just as Obama and our society in general was doing on gay rights and many other issues. So, would it be fair to single out someone's (perceived) "inappropriate statement" from as much as 16 years ago, (in your case) to judge who that DUer is today?

That's what it seems some are doing. Contrast that with calling out someone with decades of homophobic or racist or misogynistic or hateful comments... Quite a different matter, at least to me....

I believe in EVOLUTION! (both re: Darwinism and in personal and societal growth)

[HipChick]

10. What I don't understand, if Joy Reid has such a low following, why the hundreds of threads?

Unless...

[img][/img]

[leftofcool]

21. I think you know the answer

She was mean to someone and now the followers want her gone.

[dalton99a]

27. +1.

[Rorey]

39. That's exactly it.

It's kind of getting old.

[leftofcool]

78. If she resigns and I suspect she will, that blue wave goes right out the window.

There is a lot of talk going on in certain circles and the word is, that those Black women who have been carrying Demos over the line for like ever, will not be voting.

[kstewart33]

96. What 'certain circles'?

It's impossible to believe that black women will not vote in 2018 or 2020. They're as fed up as the rest of us.

No single black or white woman in the media is so important that her resignation would end the blue wave. Joy's been a great asset to MSNBC but I'd wager that relatively few black Americans are aware of her.

If suspicions are true, Joy should simply sincerely apologize and continue her work at MSNBC.

[HipChick]

132. And I'd guess you have no connection or contact

with black communities...

[kstewart33]

172. Let's use logic instead.

Joy's most recent ratings published early this month indicates that she's on a roll. She's outpacing CNN in her weekend time slots, reaching a total of 1.3 million viewers.

Black Americans comprise 12.3% of the US population. Let's be generous and assume that 18% of her viewership is black. So she is reaching 234,000 black viewers each week.

There are approximately 37 million black Americans. Joy's reaching about 6 tenths of one percent of the black population.

We tend to think that more people are interested in what we are because we have a passion for it. Most people aren't. The sad truth is that Joy, while doing a great job building her base, has about as much of a chance of singularly stopping the blue wave as the odds of a snowstorm in Cuba. And I'd bet if we asked her about her chances of doing so, she'd think we're crazy.

We can hope, but for now, it just isn't going to happen.

[HipChick]

188. Logic and assumptions? I would not take the black vote for granted...

[kstewart33]

208. No, absolutely not.

For 2018 and 2020, the Dems must begin addressing the needs and priorities of black Americans, especially black women.

It is only a matter of time before minorities will no longer be that. Instead, more than 50% of the population will be black, Hispanic, Asian, and other races.

The Republicans know that. In part, that's what all of their gerrymandering is about.

An interesting study was released a few days ago with some surprising results. Among white Christian males who voted for Trump, the primary reasons weren't concern about lost jobs or immigration. The driving factor for their support of Trump was their concern that they were losing the advantages of being white, Christian and male. They were angry and concerned about losing their superiority.

They should be because time is not on their side.

[MrsCoffee]

109. Nice try.

[pazzyanne]

118. Have some raspberries on me!

[HipChick]

133. There's a powerful movement growing right now..

[leftofcool]

170. Yes, there is.

[HenryWallace]

186. If, in deed, the "Blue Wave" is dependent on ....

a weekend host at the 2nd or 3rd rated cable network, then we clearly have a problem!

Here is a novel idea; how about we adopt and talk about important issues to the majority of voters.

[Exotica]

207. I agree with this, I find is ludicrous to say the Blue Wave is dependent on Joy

Also, as a LGBTQ PoC, I find it offensive that I would withhold my vote over some corporate network decision made by a paid commentator and her bosses simply becuase one of the parties happens to be an African American with a self-acknowledge history of causal homophobia.

I absolutely accept people evolve and I am 100% willing to forgive and forget, but that is not the crux of the biscuit here. The fact she has actually admitted to anti-LGBTQ posts in the past makes (the probability is hard to gauge) this a tad more likely that these newly found posts maybe be real. I have seen a post of hers in this vein shown to be posted on DU itself, years ago. If events get to the point where the posts are shown to indeed be authentic, it then becomes the denial and cover up that will be her possible downfall.

On the other hand, IF this indeed proven to be an actual hack, it would be an incredibly complex and sophisticated act, involving multiple databases and perhaps hundreds of archived snapshots, all hacked, all changed. At that point one would have to start suspecting a state actor or Intel agency, and I hope the FULL force of the law comes rolling down upon the guilty parties. Also, all who were pushing the story early and hard, again IF it is found to be a hack, will have THEIR credibility heavily damaged.

One way or the other, someone is going to take a hard fall.


I am still waiting to see how this all plays out.

[sheshe2]

231. Oh Henry.

HenryWallace
186. If, in deed, the "Blue Wave" is dependent on ....

a weekend host at the 2nd or 3rd rated cable network, then we clearly have a problem!

Just a "A weekend host"? " That is an unnecessary take down of a prominent black woman whos voice is heard by many.

Here is a novel idea; how about we adopt and talk about important issues to the majority of voters.

A simple fact for you. She IS talking to the majority voters and our Democratic base. Sad you missed that. POC are our base.

[HenryWallace]

245. You realy need to look up the definition of "fact."

Last edited Mon Apr 30, 2018, 10:53 AM - Edit history (1)

That she is "a weekend host" is a fact (unnecessary or not).

(Context is important here, it was stated to demonstrate the improbability of the now fictional hack).


Your "simple fact" that " (s)he IS talking to the majority voters and our Democratic base" is, at its very best, an opinion.

As is my opinion that she is an important voice for people of color who constitute an under-represented and often ignored portion of the Democratic party base (an opinion, which I believe, we have in common).

[TheSmarterDog]

156. That's pretty much the story

[EffieBlack]

61. Because she hasn't been a good girl

[Eliot Rosewater]

129. Joy, like Rachel, is a VERY strong voice against a handful of very powerful people.

I listed 3 names, hopefully I wont get in trouble for telling the truth, lets see.

[Glorfindel]

11. Thank you, MrScorpio, for saying exactly what I feel.

[Hugin]

12. I find it non-coincidental this episode broke out on the exact same day ...

the so-called Diamond & Silk perjured themselves by claiming they hadn't received any money from the Chump Campaign.

Keep your eyes open people!

[Eliot Rosewater]

130. ALWAYS a reason. Those who easily want to believe the worst about Joy, lets just say

I could have predicted that.

[ehrnst]

14. Hear hear! (nt)

[LexVegas]

15. Its a coordinated lynching. nt

[dalton99a]

18. I think we should expel Bill Clinton because he didn't declare he got a blow job

You know, there are outright murderous criminals running for public office on the GOP side e.g. Arpaio, Blankenship - plus all the countless racists, thieves, and crooks already in office working overtime to literally destroy our country.

And we are falling for this stupid shit - again?

[leftofcool]

22. Nah, some of us are smarter and can see right though to who is behind it.

[R B Garr]

103. Yeah, we know exactly who is doing this and what their motives are. nt

[malaise]

19. Nailed it

[grantcart]

23. 100%

[Hortensis]

25. Joy Reid is an ally and a powerful voice for liberalism.

What she said all those years ago belatedly opened her to criticism today, but -- taken in context -- it does not in any way put her in the camp of the enemies she and we are fighting.

She is a decent person of good will toward all mankind, and they are not.

[Blue_Adept]

26. I've been here just a bit longer but I think I have on idea why it matters

It matters because we no longer use the same kind of moderation. There's no real boundaries set other than what the membership itself at large wants it to be. And a good percentage of posters, real or fake, want this discussion to happen. The kinds of boundaries and "tamping down" periods we'd have through the moderation style of the past doesn't exist at this point.

You and I have both seen some intense primary seasons but something was obviously very different about the last one. And the lack of that control by a higher level moderation and set of rules really made it easier to be gamed and taken advantage of, just like we see how discussions have been going since.

[OilemFirchen]

216. Remember the uncoordinated alert-swarming that didn't happen in 2016?

It's not happening again and it's absolutely not coordinated.

[Blue_Adept]

219. There was a reason I took myself out of jury duty for awhile

[el_bryanto]

28. Fair point

I have said some stupid things myself, here and my old blog - the truth is if you aren't a bit smarter and more aware than you were a decade ago than . . . well that's a pity.

Bryant

[Rorey]

47. Agree, and I hope to be even more smart and more aware in another decade

We're never finished learning and evolving, until that last breath.

One of the awesome things about getting older, is that I just keep getting better.

[RandiFan1290]

29. I remember the time on DU

When LGBT were told to 'shut up and sit down' in fears that they would help the republicons win. This was before Clinton and Obama 'evolved'

[kentuck]

30. If we did not grow and change, where would we be?

Any of us?

[NatBurner]

32. we'd be republicans

[Rorey]

48. Great answer NT

[OneGrassRoot]

33. HUGE K&R n/t

[Honeycombe8]

35. I've been here for well over 10 years, myself. I agree. I also think those posts are fake.

(Altho my forum info says about 10 years, I changed computers or had a computer snafu or something, and did a new logon about 10 or so years ago.)

I think some of the posts I saw are fake. The ones I saw are so outrageous that no one in her right mind, on a hopefully upward trajectory in her career, would post. Some are bizarre. Joan Walsh has stated that some of the posts have no comments to them, whereas Joy's other posts have comments.

I didn't think Joy was a big enough potato at MSNBC to go after, but maybe it's because she's not one of the big potatoes that it was easier to try to pull off.

I saw people agreeing with posts here about Joy's posts, without even any direct quotes of the posts. Seriously? All some people need is someone else saying "Hey, so-and-so posted some homophobic, fat-shaming posts 10 years ago," and they agree?

Case in point: I saw one post about Rosie McDonald, calling her chubby in a derogatory way. Well, Joy Reid has had a weight problem herself and lost weight, so it's not likely that Joy would do fat-shaming. That post also cusses. Seemed like a fake post to me, when I read it.

I'm not even a Joy Reid fan. I don't dislike her, but don't watch her show. But I do require clear evidence before I agree to damaging someone's reputation. Bandwagons? NOT FOR ME! I ride my own train, with clear and convincing direct evidence.

[Rorey]

53. Riding my own train.

"Bandwagons? NOT FOR ME! I ride my own train, with clear and convincing direct evidence."

I love that.

I admire a lot of our "leaders", but the truth is that I'm my own leader.

[Honeycombe8]

183. +1. :) nt

[kcr]

38. I've notice lately on DU that it's many of the same DUers eager to get the pitchforks out

every time one of our own is attacked. I'm sure that's no coincidence.

[OneGrassRoot]

42. I've been tempted to research that myself...

I haven't paid enough attention over the last few years and thus am not as familiar with members as I was in years past, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn there's a certain contingent which grabs the pitchforks each time.

[George II]

57. If you click on the rectangle with the number in it on any anti-Joy OP, you'll see that.

[Blue_true]

40. I wrote earlier this week how I seriously had to evolve on Transgendered people.

I have always been ok with Gay people because I had a brother who was Gay. But I did not evolve at all on Transgendered people until around 2009-2010 when I had to work closely with a Trans person, until then such people were out of mind for me and when I did rarely think about them, I considered them freaks. But when I actually worked closely with a transgendered person and saw the person's humanity and dreams for her future, my mind started changing to where I am today, Transgendered people have EVERY right to anything that a straight person has a right to, attempts to exclude transgendered people from anything that they have a right to access is immoral and criminal.

[EffieBlack]

66. I've had to evolve on gay marriage, transgendered issues, too

And I'm certain I've said things in the past about both that, if uttered publicly today, would make me cringe.

I doubt any of this outrage and rush to judgment has anything to do with Joy Reid's views on LGBTQ issues since no one with a brain or ears believes that she's anti-LGBTQ. The more I see and hear of the "controversy" - and who is driving and buying in to it - the clearer it becomes what this is really about.

But I'm not too worried. People underestimate Joy at their peril.

As I've said before, if they don't yet know, they will soon learn that if you come for the Queen and she hasn't sent for you, you had BETTER not miss.

[Blue_true]

68. Most reasonable people have to evolve on something.

LGBTQ people had been pushed into the shadows for so long that they simply didn't come to mind for most people. Also, social pressure had a lot to do with people's behavior, if I sat with a Trans person when in school, or as a young adult the way that it is perfectly normal for me to do today, I would have been called stuff that I didn't want to be called, today, I don't give a damn, I view people as human beings first and formost and let the chips fall where they fall.

[Paladin]

45. K&R. Nicely put..

[IronLionZion]

46. I didn't support gay marriage back then, perhaps I should throw myself under the bus

I've seen many long time DUers evolve on many issues.

I've seen some openly racist posts that could easily fit in over at Stormfront or National Vanguard. Some of those DUers are still here.

[mfcorey1]

55. Some slaughtering her just like they did Al Franken!

[90-percent]

56. rat f**king

Have we learned NOTHING from the pernicious brainiacs spawned in the nixon white house? your roves, atwaters, stones, ailes, murdochs, mercers, bannons, breitbarts, limbaughs, rathers, putin's, cohen-kohns, etc etc. etc.

set your critical thinking caps to ELEVEN! It's going to be a bumpy ride and THE PLANET can not tolerate another loss of the magnitude of THE GREAT AL FRANKEN!

He was smart enough. He was honorable enough. He was self assured enough, and dammit, he did it from the heart for the basic democracy tenants that were the foundation of our FORMERLY GREAT nation.

Won't get fooled again........and again...............and again.................and again................and again.

-90% Jimmy

[Anon-C]

58. WELL SAID! NT

[HAB911]

59. K&R

[EffieBlack]

60. I wish DU had a Big Ole Sloppy Kiss button 'cause I'd be pushing it right now for you!

Everything you said is exactly what needs to be said.

Thank you!

[Nitram]

62. Yes, any thinking person changes and matures over time.

I feel sorry for kids who are growing up now with their entire life permanently on the internet.

[mythology]

63. If it's irrelevant, why did she come out with an implausible conspiracy?

She had apologized for previous remarks. The concern over those comments passed. If she's lying, she deserves to be done for a while.

[leftofcool]

79. And you can kiss that blue wave goodbye if she is done.

[MrsCoffee]

110. Lol.

Yeah, that blue wave all hinges on Joy Reid.

No wonder folks are out to get her.

[pazzyanne]

119. My question is...

why are you so sure of that? Inquiring mind wants to know.

[leftofcool]

171. I belong to a large powerful group of Black females who are fed up

There are many Democrats who are also fed up with the smear campaigns instigated by the far left.

[pazzyanne]

184. Thank you for the info.

I'm a 75 year old white woman who spent her younger years fighting for civil and equal rights. Can I join even though I'm not black?

[Demit]

64. I'm with you 100%.

[Javaman]

65. I always enjoy your writing. Thanks! nt

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

67. Couldn't agree more.

nice post. We ARE in the fight for our country, and it's not a joke. All hands on deck, and let's not let the other side use what's good about all of us to rend us to pieces. Well said.

[betsuni]

69. K&R

[MineralMan]

71. What you said!

[Ferrets are Cool]

72. I've changed so much over that period of time and even moreso since

my 20s. (I'm 61 now) Back then I was argumentative and knew everything. I would punch holes thru walls when upset. I would even tell off-color jokes.
While not perfect, I am a much better human being now. I understand that people who are set in their ways are not going to be swayed so why argue. My temper is a fleeting thing and rarely surfaces to more than a swift swear word. And one of the my most proud statements is that my wife and I NEVER argue. In 18 years, we have never raised our voices to each other.
So yes, people can change. IF they wish to do so.

[mwooldri]

74. If we applied society's standards of today to times gone past...

... we'd be losing lots of people.

Society changes. What was acceptable a few or many years ago may not be acceptable today.

Case in point... I was watching on YouTube some early 60s BBC TV - specifically "That Was The Week That Was" - a groundbreaking, cutting edge for its time, political satire show. One sketch would definitely NOT be made today... a song and dance routine about lynchings of African-Americans in Mississippi. This routine featured caucasians in blackface, liberal use of the N-word and other things that would shock and outrage people if it were repeated on say, Saturday Night Live today.

Then at the end of the show (before the end credits)... we have David Frost (he wasn't a Sir back then) say this "joke"... "What do you call a tall, suave coloured gentleman, highly educated University professor with three degrees in Nuclear Physics in Alabama? N-word."

My guess is that Sir David would be cringing at what he was saying and doing back in 1963 - even though when you look at it all you would see that the overall message was that racism is absurd. However he has the luxury of many many years.

Joy Ann Reid is being hauled over the coals for some obscure blog post that she wrote years ago, and whether it was actually posted or not is debatable. The debate about homosexuality's place in mainstream society has moved much more quickly than the debate about race. I think she could have handled the situation somewhat better but I do not see her as a homophobe.

Let her be. MSNBC, don't drop her. This will come to pass in the end.

If it doesn't, then maybe I should be petitioning the Queen to remove Sir David's knighthood for using a whole bunch of racially insensitive words on prime time national TV, watched by tens of millions of people.

[mnhtnbb]

75. The Dem establishment happily threw Al Franken under the bus.

This is the same kind of crap.

What makes it so difficult for some people to see this?

[BobTheSubgenius]

84. And those of that Dem establishment are going to have to work some to get me past that..

Al Franken may have been too left to get all the way to the WH, but a self-avowed socialist made a pretty creditable run, so maybe he did. If he ran, he would have been my favourite Presidential candidate ever.

It's a very great pity that his usefulness is now relegated to being an example in a case like this.

And, when I said "work some" I meant a whole hell of a LOT - something they would never do consciously.

[mcar]

76. Agree completely!

[Tarc]

77. Hell, Laura Bush killed a kid when she was 17. Didn't impact her career

Joy Reid being crass and bigoted once, and having redeemed herself since, is no reason to trow her to the wolves.

[stonecutter357]

80. I called someone gay in a video game one time...

[NatBurner]

92. i was an army drill sergeant in the 80's

i've said more than my share of heinous shit

i can guarangotdamntee that the DU collective would clutch pearls over something i've utterred under the smokey hat

would i say any of that stuff today? good lord, no

[raven mad]

81. Amen.

[Gothmog]

85. Great post

[malthaussen]

86. Amen, brother. n/t

[PatrickforO]

88. I agree.

Let's put the lid on the teapot so this tiny tempest subsides.

Ten years ago, we all said things that we wouldn't say now. Let's give Reid a pass and move our attention back to the shitty policies of the Trump administration and the entire GOP, and how they are systematically destroying everything this country should stand for.

That's the real tempest. And we need to be fighting that tooth and nail.

[spanone]

89. K&R...

[seta1950]

90. YES

I agree wholeheartedly, thank you.

[kimbutgar]

91. Last night I saw two anti Joy posts and both had the same number of postings and when I looked

At their profiles they started DU at the same time. I was too tired to research more than that.

[dalton99a]

94. +1

[alarimer]

95. But claiming you are hacked when you are not is a bigger deal.

I know that people change their minds about things. Being wrong back in the day is not the issue.

The issue is not owning up to bad opinions and chalking it up to a hack, which is dubious at best.

[bettyellen]

177. In putting that claim next to the claims he way back machine cannot be hacked. I don't believe that

and I understand how both sides could be mistaken.

[judesedit]

97. I'll be sure to watch more now and buy more from her advertizers

[GregW]

98. 16 years for me too (with a decade hiatus)

Agree 100% with your post

[Initech]

100. I have to say I agree.

Another smoke and mirrors tactic brought to us by the world's most deplorable political party in an effort to keep us fighting with each other while their figures get off the hook.

[HootieMcBoob]

101. Thank you!!! K&R

[still_one]

102. Well said.

[nolabear]

106. So much stone throwing rather than trying to lift us all.

She has said some stuff. Long ago. And she seems to have NOT said some stuff she’s been accused of. She has also been an incredible ally and her allegiance has helped myriad people and liberal causes. And still people let themselves be used to become the sanctimonious mob to take down our own.

There’s a slope and there’s a slope, and you have to find your spot on it, put your cleats on and stand firm. Joy has been in a really good spot for a long time and I refuse to do the right’s work by knocking her down.

I’m with you, MrScorpio. And Joy.

[BadgerMom]

107. K and R

Truth.

[MrsCoffee]

108. Huge K&R

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

111. I agree, 100%. Thanks for this.

[Enoki33]

112. Well said. We all evolve over time, as does nature and the universe.

Humans that devolve morph into Laura Ingraham and Bill O’Reilly facsimiles.

[NNadir]

113. As a paragon of political correctness, whose had...

...the pleasure of being banned from a "progressive" political website (Daily Kos) for views I still hold, I appreciate your remarks which are well stated and wise.

I have no dog to hunt here. Until this silly hub bub I had no idea who Joy Reid is. I don't watch much mainstream television.

[Pepsidog]

114. Right on brother!

[Scurrilous]

115. K&R

[yonder]

117. from another thread: AMEN! and thanks Mr. S

[TheDebbieDee]

120. Agreed! Hacked or not, IDGAF abt JAR's blog 10 years ago!

[xxqqqzme]

121. You made me look

I've been here since '02. That certain Supreme Court decision in December, 2000, sent me searching for a place to vent. I wholeheartedly agree with you. I stayed away during all of the '16 election cycle because of the infighting.

I will never understand why Democrats are so willing to roll over and allow the snarling, rabid, religious RW attack dog to grab our throats.

Joy Reid is a strong, smart voice we need. With nothing but RWNJ over populating the media airwaves, we need every sane voice we have. We cannot allow Ms. Reid to be marginalized. We tragically lost one smart voice in the Senate this year. We cannot afford to lose another. This is an election year. These attacks are going to increase. We have to be vigilant. Every 'treat' the RW tosses out is not worth stopping to devour.

[Ligyron]

124. If Joy actually wrote those posts she needs to apologize NOW.

Before this gets any worse and I think she'll be fine eventually. I enjoy her show and would miss her. MSNBC would be a lesser place without her.

I think many people have evolved on this issue, I know I have. I've never hated gays or trans but I have made jokes and attempted to belittle fellow males with the "gay" label. Admittedly I was much younger then and this happened before the time I realized my brother was gay.

[KT2000]

125. Thank you

Good point about payback.
Joy is a fearless interviewer and that is what they fear.
Who goes digging around in a 10 year old dead blog but the same people who got rid of Dan Rather and Franken.
I want to see more of Joy Reid's interviews!!

[elleng]

126. ' I changed my mind, I matured and I was convinced by some of you that I needed to change my mind.'

[ariadne0614]

131. Wholeheartedly agree,

. . .even though the crude language gets exhausting around here sometimes. Still, thanks for getting the message out. Don’t mind me.

[mr_lebowski]

134. So Much This ... well said, 100% agree ...

We are being divided, quite purposefully, by bad actors.

Not saying people on DU (necessarily, though there may be some), and I do get the point that she shouldn't lie about it if she did say these things. But she's personally said nada, so how can SHE ... be lying?

[Eliot Rosewater]

135. The question will be is are the voices of the KGB bots, the KGB agents, the GOP agents

and another group on the far left, their workers, will those voices be louder than ours and if they are Joy will be fired.

This is a war we are in and I know who the fucking enemy is, so dont fuck around with me this bullshit about Joy Reid, she is one of the HEROES of this thing.

I am not telling the OP not to fuck around, he knows that.

[ismnotwasm]

136. And the gleeful JPR refugees are so annoying.

Personally I ignore a lot of their shit, but that doesn’t mean I’m unaware.

[struggle4progress]

137. She's attractive, no-nonsense, prepared, quick, sincere, and warm: everything the wingnuts hate

[TheSmarterDog]

145. Not just the wingnuts it seems...

[elocs]

138. "We're in a fight against some real devious bastards..."

Yes, and they count on the tendency of those on the Left to be sanctimonious and to eat their own. We can believe that terrible criminals can reform and become new people but too often we lack the ability to believe one of us was once not a good person but has completely changed. Is this because of hatred of the right, who they are and what they believe in, runs so hot? Or are we just fearful of being branded as hypocrites for not always condemning those who do not live up to our standards, not matter how long ago it may have been.

Until this story broke I had no idea whatsoever who Joy Reid is, but it certainly appears she is not the person she was many years ago. I reckon none of us would want the sins and indiscretions of our past thrown in our faces. As an old man now I can recall my youth and remember doing things, saying things, and treating people in a way that now makes me ashamed. But I also know now that I am no longer that person and have not been that person for decades.

[TheSmarterDog]

139. I regret that I have only one rec to give to this OP

[radical noodle]

143. I'm with you

I've changed over time as do most people. Joy is doing great things, she's a good voice for us and to let anyone divide us over this is crazy.

I want to know who started looking up this crap to begin with.

[revmclaren]

144. A huge K & R...

Only! 2018 - 2020.

[Lifelong Protester]

148. I like Joy and will continue to watch her.

Everyone evolves.

[kag]

151. Pre-

cisely!!!

This is nothing more than payback for the backlash against real reprehensible fuck nuggets like Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham. And these same people know full well that if they throw one of ours to the wolves, we'll do the job of destroying them in a feeding frenzy. It's been done before and we're doing it right now. All that has to be done is to exploit our own abundant sense of righteous indignation.

Two words: Al Franken.

Thank you, Mr. Scorpio. I always love your stuff. This stuff I double-love!

[JCanete]

152. Some people have agendas...some people have breathless reactions to the story...some have legitimate

feelings about what Joy may or may not have said. Its worth making space for that last group, even if its important to understand that there are axes to grind.

If Joy said these things back in the day, they weren't pretty but they were hardly out of line with a lot of mainstream thinking. It would make her biggest mistake not owning up to them now and instead freaking out and making up a cover on the fly.

I do think media matters has it right, that they aren't going to be baited by the GOP on this issue when the GOP clearly has no standing on sensitivity and doesn't practice any level of decency. But again, I would caution people away from steamrolling any poster who is legitimately angry or hurt, or to assume that their anger must not be legitimate.

[wonkwest]

159. Intimating gay men prey on teen boys is very much out of line

I'm an LGBT individual. If, in 2006, you were using the "gay men go after minors" bit as part of your thought process, you were very much out of the liberal mainstream. This was, after all, post-FMA. The LGBT community was very much prominent and fighting for our lives.

She should've known way better.

And these "Well, it was ok to say it back then." No, it was not. Miss Charlie? Yeah, that stuff was around back then. Hell, it's around now with "Miss Lindsey." But gay men are predators after teenaged boys?

Newp. That was not at all ok back then. It's appalling to watch people excuse or diminish it, and I'm wondering who these friends of her's are who let her get away with it.

I'm finding all these threads nauseating. I'm new to posting (I've lurked for ages), but I just couldn't keep quiet watching my community get diminished and papered over like this in defense of a minor cable news host. What an embarrassment. It's 2018 for cripes sake.

[JCanete]

167. I don't mean to say it was okay or caused no harm, nor that some people didn't use this stuff

cynically, and to be fair, I don't have a lot of trust in Joy Reid's moral compass even today, but I don't know her. I do think there should be some room afforded for growth. I think that people are in some ways symptoms of the times, which again, doesn't make what they did less toxic, and it probably makes it more toxic, but I think truth and reconciliation is a better approach than punishment.

She has the opportunity to grow and become better, and to see all people as people..to come to terms with the ways in which her past thinking and the platform she had for that thinking may have hurt people. And we would be better for bringing people into that fold than for excluding them. If people are excluded when they could become powerful allies, they have to go somewhere. They don't all just go away. Of course, assuming she said these things and wasn't actually hacked and framed, her disavowal of them is not a move in the right direction. It can be attributed to panic, and we don't need to give her any awards of heroism, and I certainly can't demand from you or anybody who has actually suffered at the hands of this kind of rhetoric that you find room to forgive(I know that probably takes a lot), but I think the world in general needs more forgiveness, and it has to come first from those who have the capacity to do so today.

[JCanete]

175. I will apologize though for saying that her worst mistake would have been not owning up now.

That didn't sit right even when I posted, but since i thought I was appealing to peopel sympathetic to Joy and attempting to be somewhat conciliatory, I left it, but I can see how that reduces the significance of that toxic language to just "a product of the times," when it has a brutal footprint.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

229. 100% spot on

Calling gay men predators against children in 2006 was Focus on The Family level slanders

2006 was not the 80s or the 90s.

[GitRDun]

157. I'm definitely with yoju on this one.

I have skipped over all of the Reid posts.

I've seen her a ton on MSNBC.

She does not strike me as anything but a progressive host much like the others on that network.

This isn't the hill for us to die on.

[tblue37]

158. + a brazillion! nt

[Lithos]

162. Two words

Senator Byrd....


People change - sometimes you only look at where they started to judge how much they've grown.

[StrictlyRockers]

163. I remember a post I made about twelve years ago where I said Alex Jones was funny & not that bad

DU was smart enough to correct me. I listened.

[wonkwest]

165. Watching heterosexuals absolve themselves is, quite frankly, very weird

That power is not given to them, and no one would stand for it if we were discussing sex or race. I'm not sure what makes the LGBT community so special that we can be dismissed so cavalierly like this in liberal enclaves.

Joy Reid needs to own what she said. She claimed gay men go after teenaged boys to recruit them "into the lifestyle." And this was in 2006 when the gay marriage battle was well under way - any liberal should have known better by then. If this were the 50's or even 80's, fine. But 2006? And transphobic slurs being tossed around in 2010? She was in her 40s when saying that stuff.

However, that teenager bit is the one that is sticking in my craw.

I very much believe she said it. The evidence is overwhelmingly against her at this point. The Daily Beast article - her employer who isn't exactly out to get her - is what finally persuaded me that she is scrambling and not being honest. Miss Charlie was one thing. But what is now coming to light is much, much, much worse. I think she knows how terrible those words are, and that is why she is afraid to take ownership of them.

If she had simply come clean, apologized, and made contrition via, I don't know, a show about why what she said was wrong, how damaging it is to the LGBT community, and how we can progress beyond those dangerous attitudes, I think a lot of people would give her a pass. I certainly would.

But to say it, then lie about it? Then have a wave of fans attacking everyone for doubting a highly, highly implausible explanation full of holes? That's even worse. Not only is she minimizing the damaging and dangerous words she wrote, she is risking her journalistic integrity to boot.

Anyway, these threads have been appalling. Homophobia has been excused, diminished, or elided over. I've seen LGBT posters being dismissed and attacked. I've seen homophobic language being defended. I've seen people who object to the severe homophobic language be cynically accused of being sexist, racist, or motivated by Bernie Sanders (just . . . what?).This is supposed to be a liberal and Democratic website, no?

I'm not very familiar with Joy Reid. I don't watch cable news, and outside of a few references I've seen of here and other sites I read, I can't say I know much about her positions on things. So I have no dog in this fight. I'm not invested in seeing her stay or go.

I really didn't want my de-lurking to be on a contentious issue. I'm content to read. But these threads, as an LGBT individual, have made me very angry.

For all the self-congratulation happening here, it is incredibly clear that a lot of posters here haven't quite fully "evolved" nearly as far as they seem to think they have.

[TheSmarterDog]

169. Watch & learn

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/1017489766

[wonkwest]

174. I saw it and was not impressed

It's devolving into conspiracy theory at this point. I will follow the opinions of tech experts - not pundits. Truth matters, even in the age of Trump.

[TheSmarterDog]

176. Do you know who Malcolm Nance is? He's not a pundit.

He is a tech expert with 35 yrs counter-intelligence experience.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

195. He also says at 1:05 he isn't going to speak directly about this subject. Why?

[TheSmarterDog]

206. And what does he say after 4:00?

[wonkwest]

199. He is very much a pundit these days

And generally I like him.

However, being counter-intelligence does not automatically mean a deep knowledge of the technical aspects of how web/server/crawler technology behaves and archives. I'm inclined to believe people who work with those things for a living.

[TheSmarterDog]

205. OK, a naval cryptology specialist w/35 yrs exp doesn't know anything about computers. OK.

You go with that.

[StrictlyRockers]

209. There is an FBI investigation underway.

I'd like to wait to see what they find before passing judgment. I am 99% sure Joy Ann Reid did not write the homophobic posts she is accused of writing (over ten years ago).

[melman]

234. Great post

[Cracklin Charlie]

166. Well said, MrScorpio.

A calmly measured response is usually the way to go.

[Dennis Donovan]

179. For almost 30 years, I laughed at Hank Azaria's depiction of Apu on The Simpsons...

...because it never occurred to me that the depiction was offensive. Why would I? I'm not Indian- American. And, I was still immature enough to not understand that empathy should be employed in such a situation.

Fast forward to now. Ol' dense me gets it. And I applaud Hank's vow to retire the character if it cannot be fixed thru a new storyline that divorces the stereotypes altogether, once and for all. We've all grown a bit since 1989.

Culture is not static, nor are its norms. If a period of enlightenment ensues, those who REFUSE to be enlightened should certainly be shunned. But, to those who ARE enlightened and clamor for correction and forgiveness? They do not deserve to be shunned if they are truly repentant.

[Tarheel_Dem]

182. Excellent post. And very timely analogous observation re: Apu. n/t

[Dennis Donovan]

191. "a decade"

I mentioned three decades in my example.

10 years ago, President Obama said that marriage was between a man and a woman. However, he signed into law sweeping reforms regarding the rights of LGBT Americans. So, by your logic, he should be shunned because 10 years ago, he wasn't enlightened enough?

[Dennis Donovan]

196. Nonsense...

Give me an example where Joy has been homophobic (or said homophobic things) in the last 10 years - but it MUST be an example that is unimpeachable (not something that can be hacked - give me a video).

You're new... why did you join DU today, of ALL days?

I recommend DUers google your username. Proshchay!

[Dennis Donovan]

198. ...hmm, who said it was Russian hackers, anyway?

Getting out in front of yourself?

[we can do it]

202. Couldn't agree more.

[Tarheel_Dem]

211. Thrilled to K&R!

[many a good man]

220. They got the guns but we got the numbers

Loved you for decades, man!

[HipChick]

221. Great post!

[tavernier]

232. I was here a bit before Dubya

under the name Keys Disease.

I had to leave because I came close to losing my sanity.

It was the worst of times and I actually had to immerse myself into theater and books and writing to keep from going insane. I actually wrote and published a novel out of the energy and anger.

But my passion for right versus wrong brought me back home to DU.

I guess there is something in us that makes the fight worth while.

[alphafemale]

233. The egging of the Limo.

Different Days.

[populistdriven]

237. Not only are we in a fight with some real devious bastards but the stress of

having little to no ability to make a bit of difference is really getting to me.

I am no longer walking on eggshells with my neighbors or anyone else that supports them.

If I can't change their minds or make them not vote at least they can feel my scorn.

It is impossibly frustrating.

[Hekate]

239. Your OP has over 300 recs at this point & I am one of them...

Maybe I won't quit DU over this after all.

I wish, however, that more people would recognize that we are being ratfckd, bigly, and I wish they would stop enabling the enemy.

[ellenrr]

243. yeah, but...

"Newly unearthed posts from MSNBC host Joy Reid’s now-defunct blog contain content that is not only anti-gay, but anti-Muslim.
Reid recently claimed that her website had been hacked and that the homophobic posts were fabricated to smear her. But the posts, found by The Washington Free Beacon on Thursday, appeared to have been archived by the Library of Congress since 2006.
One post reflected that Reid saidan excerpt from the blog Mark in Mexico that made derogatory claims about Muslims “makes a salient a salient point here,” and quoted it.
“My feeling is that the only reason that a world war between civilizations has not already broken out is that the vast majority of Muslims living in the world today are so desperately poor that they have the time, energy and resources for only the occasional burst of AK-47 fire into the air from the garbage and sewage laden streets outside of their mud huts,” the Mark in Mexico blog wrote. “Give them resources and I fear that they will come after us everywhere that they can find us, which is to say everywhere.”
Another post discovered on Reid’s blog stated that “current iterations of Islam are largely incompatible with Western notions of free speech and expression, and thus, I’d say, with the Bushian dream of Western style democracy for all,” according to Mediaite."

http://www.newsweek.com/anti-muslim-posts-unearthed-joy-reids-old-blog-904507

[uponit7771]

244. Still a hit job, no context around why it was quoted. Free Beacon is a extremest site and ...

... don't know why anyone would quote it here