Who here on this website thinks Joy Reid is a transphobic, homophobe today??

[boston bean]

Can one use language they wouldn’t use today. Can they think something 10 years ago that they no longer would today?

Can they be a good steward for liberal causes even if they wrote something that now would be questionable and wrong?

Is there anything within the last few years that prove she is some monster?

Let me know.

[Evergreen Emerald]

1. I LOVE JOY REID

She is an amazing American.

[Spider Jerusalem]

2. She has a history of making homophobic and transphobic comments.

I can't claim to know what's in anyone's heart, so I have no idea if she is in fact homophobic and/or transphobic, now, or whether she's "evolved", or just learned that some things aren't acceptable to say in polite company anymore.

[Maraya1969]

18. If she has a history of this I'm sure you can share a couple of them that are verified as her.

I've listened to her over the years and can't remember one thing that was homophobic or transphobic. I can't even imagine her saying anything like that.

So if you are going to make such a damaging claim against one of our greatest supporters, please cite your sources and explain exactly what she said.

[Spider Jerusalem]

23. There are the blog posts she apologised for in December, for a start.

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/msnbc-s-joy-reid-apologizes-insensitive-lgbt-blog-posts-n826091

also using a transphobic slur to refer to Ann Coulter (who is far from being one of my favourite people, but who is also female):

Link to tweet

and again re Charlie Crist, unrelated to the blog posts she apologised for:

Link to tweet

So yeah, she has a long but not especially recent (at least, not within the past few years) history of casual homophobia and transphobia.

[R B Garr]

42. She was pointing out Republican hypocrisy with Gov. Crist. This kind of

intentional denial of the intent of her comments doesn't look good for the crew who is invested in smearing her.

[Spider Jerusalem]

47. And with Lindsay Graham as well, I guess?

Link to tweet

And gratuitous use of transphobic slurs is okay, because it's Ann Coulter, I suppose? (Does that mean it's okay for leftish commentators to refer to Milo Yiannopoulos as "that f***** Milo"?)

[R B Garr]

55. She was mocking Republican hypocrisy, and she is on

record apologizing for that. You should look up Malcolm Nance's info on how the Black Propaganda works. It's also been posted all over this website. You are perpetuating it and are a perfect example of how it works.

[Eliot Rosewater]

127. Of course that is what she is doing. But she is ANTI rump and putin, so expect

major and constant and non stop attacks of her.

They aint playin, the other side, they will take down Joy, you, me, EVERYONE

[Maraya1969]

45. I have made comments about Ann Coulter as have many people on here in the far past.

I would not do that today.

And other than that there are only a group of them that are critical of Charlie Christ.

A "long history" is not something that happened a long time ago. It is a repetition of something that continues for a long time. This is not that.

I think your comment was inflammatory.

[Spider Jerusalem]

49. I think my comment was 100% accurate.

[stonecutter357]

50. I don't ..

[Spider Jerusalem]

51. I think it's entirely fair to say that someone who regularly employed homophobic tropes...

for the better part of a decade has a "long history" where that sort of thing is concerned.

[George II]

72. So now 2003-2008 is "the better part of a decade" and "long history"?

First it was "history", then it was "consistently", and now.......five years is "the better part of a decade"

I'm losing track of these evolving time-frame definitions.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

115. There are tweets from 2010 and 2011

[bettyellen]

87. Better part of a decade? HA HA HA. So this cant be about the veracity of her response.

Becasue that’s obviously not a thing that matters here.

[stonecutter357]

114. lol fail .....

[Maraya1969]

60. After looking at your posts over the last few days it is obvious you are out to hurt Ms. Reid

Over 80 posts in 2.5 days and all of them anti-Joy?

[Ninsianna]

134. yet personal beliefs about something that you cannot produce verifiable

Evidence of, is not really 100% accurate.

[helmedon1974]

179. Of course you do......

[George II]

118. Yes, and was forgiven by all, including Charlie Crist. But that wasn't enough to bring her down....

....so now this?

[Spider Jerusalem]

120. She should've apologised again instead of making stupid "I was hacked" claims (n/t)

[George II]

122. And how do you know that she wasn't hacked? Why should she apologize for something....

....that she says she never did? Have you ever apologized for something you didn't do?

[Spider Jerusalem]

124. Because one of the blog posts in question was quoted and linked on DU in 2007, for a start?

Because the blog posts were archived at the time they were originally posted, and exist in multiple archives, with time stamps of their archival? Because I've written a blog, and I know how utterly improbable it is that someone maintaining an active blog would fail to notice that it contained posts they had not themselves written?

[Eliot Rosewater]

128. All I ask for is consistency, surely these folks can show us a lifetime of OVERTLY speaking out

against homophobia and an OVERT support of the LGBT community..

I know I can do that.

[George II]

131. And in the course of her speaking out she's made a lot of enemies. So what's the best way....

.....to punish and/or destroy her? Turn her presumed allies against her.

[Eliot Rosewater]

132. Worked on Franken! We keep falling for it but to be fair to "we" or "us"

we are being manipulated by the very best.

[George II]

135. Twitter.

[helmedon1974]

178. How are any of those "phobic" in any way?

Everyone makes fun of Miss Lindsey. I've wondered if Ann Coulter is a man. Kellyanne Conway is the female version of Coulter. I don't know who the other guy is.
Even the stuff she apologized for isn't wrong. People are raised within religion to mistrust homosexuality and anything different, really. Black culture looks down on homosexuality even more, as do some Latino cultures. From what I've read of her past writing she simply points this out and admits she may be guilty it as well. She certainly doesn't appear to be now.

[hlthe2b]

25. who is next, Spider? Surely there must be a lot of "questionables" in your mind?

When all that is left is the true and unrepentant alt-right and overt bigots, racists, homophobes, misogynists and haters, what then? Have we won?

[Spider Jerusalem]

29. Not especially, no

and I wouldn't be bothered if she'd apologised instead of lying about it and claiming to've been hacked (which is something contradicted by the evidence).

[hlthe2b]

36. Glad to hear that, but she did apologize...

I don't know about the "hacking" issue.. Time will tell, but I do know that I do NOT believe Reid is homophobic or less than a committed liberal/progressive. I do not dislike nor disrespect Bernie Sanders, despite my strong support for Hillary --perhaps some will criticize her for apparent ambivalence towards him... I don't.

Bottom line for me is that I don't know anyone I agree with all the time... but I don't tend to write them off for a single mistake or difference of opinion.

[Spider Jerusalem]

38. She apologised for other blog posts, the current ones she claims were "hacked"

which is not supported by any evidence (see here, which references DU where one of the posts was linked in 2007): https://www.thedailybeast.com/claims-by-joy-reids-cybersecurity-expert-fall-apart?ref=home?ref=home

[hlthe2b]

67. that is based on assuming the "way back machine" which is a single moment in time archive

is totally accurate and the IT managers of the site have made clear that it is not. As to hacking there is not clear evidence either way, but DB and Atlantic are both guilty of picking up on RW memes as supposed evidence. It is not.

Whether proven or not, do you not even entertain the possibility that Reid is mistaken on what she believes to be happening? Why is it, that our progressive voices are NEVER allowed to make a mistake? When they are all driven out of any public forum or platform, what then? We are at a historically tenuous time. We should be very cautious to drum out our most effective counter voices as we did with Franken.

As a feminist woman, I have had to get past a lot of unfortunate early beliefs, comments, attitudes that make me feel less than a human being, given that control of my very body has been bargained like a poker chip. Yet, I do recognize, even among those liberals who were not previously fully supportive of me may have evolved and feel differently now. Quite frankly, some of my LGBT friends with whom I feel a strong allegiance were not there for me when women's rights were at stake with respect to pending state legislation or local policies. Do I still try to support them, give some benefit-of-the doubt and recognize they may well be there the NEXT time? I surely try to. I also think back to being and protesting at Denver airport when the travel ban first came down though admittedly I had not previously given immigration issues the attention deserved. My Latino friends would undoubtedly have had reason to believe me a "fair weather friend" in the past and maybe they still do feel I'm not sufficiently supportive, but I hope now they see I've evolved. I truly think that is the intense value of being a progressive--we care enough to evolve on issues that may NOT impact only our individual selves or family.

[Spider Jerusalem]

71. Never said she wasn't allowed to make a mistake

but she should've owned her mistake instead of claiming to be hacked. (Which does not appear to be the case, based on available evidence.)

[George II]

117. That article was written by a man who himself was convicted of hacking.....

.....spent five years in federal prison, and was barred from using computers or the internet for three more. One of his associates was involved in the hacking of Hillary Clinton's emails.

Interesting that the Daily Beast doesn't include any of that in their online biography of him.

Not exactly an upstanding, honest person on whose opinion we should rely, don't you think?

[Spider Jerusalem]

119. I would absolutely rely on his expertise in this area, since it's something he knows.

But for what it's worth, I've looked, and those posts are in web archives. You don't need to be some sort of advanced hacker to verify it. You just have to understand how web archiving works. Which most people here apparently don't.

[Ninsianna]

136. and relying on the right wing agit prop is also defensible because that is after all

what Sputnik, Free Beacon, Daily Signal, Breitbart and RT are experts in?

But the person who did the actual analysis , and isn't a convicted criminal, the actual professional expert, HE can be discounted because you don't like what he says about a woman that a certain contingent has been attacking for quite some time now?

How, very selective, dismissing the people who have the knowledge and did the actual.digging because you saw some pages that were hacked (allegedly).

Confirmation bias just dismisses all the professionals telling you that there is something fishy going on here and which is still.being investigated by the FBI. Because a guy who claims he's not a bot on Twitter screencaped some stuff to a bunch of right wingers, who share the Russian and faux left antipathy for a black woman who has been speaking truths they don't like.

All rightie. It's not a secret why this faction has been attacking and abusing her for 2 years now, they make no secret of it.

[Spider Jerusalem]

144. Sorry, but I did my own analysis, because I'm not a technical illiterate.

I verified that her blog posts exist in multiple archives; that they were archived shortly after they were posted; that they have existed in those archives in that form for over a decade (and one of them was quoted and linked on DU in 2007). Her claims of a "hack" are thus implausible, because any more recent hack would not appear in archived versions dating back to 2006 or 2007, but only in later captures. The idea that any such hack happened at the time the blog was active, and that she failed to notice the appearance of posts she didn't write, is implausible.

[helmedon1974]

183. Are you a cyber security expert?

If not, I know one I went to high school with that I'm still in contact with.
If you believe archives can't or wouldn't be hacked you're naive. More likely the blog was hacked at the time and archived as such. I think what's claimed is that the posts in question are genuine but additional text was added to them after the fact. Kina like sneaking in and changing the date on a document. Yes, that can be done too.

[dansolo]

161. So you can turn around and proclaim her guilt because she apologized

You are following the same pattern that the attacks on Al Franken took. There are still a few posters here who insist that Al must be guilty of all accusations because of his apology for the picture that was taken.

[stonecutter357]

30. you seem very concerned .

[Spider Jerusalem]

32. Not particularly?

I'm kind of appalled at the absurdist tribalism on display over this; it's sad to see so many people denying reality because it happens to concern someone who's nominally on "our side".

[stonecutter357]

33. "our side". lol .

[Spider Jerusalem]

35. Yep.

I've been posting here for 16 years, now, I've never once voted for a Republican in my life, I voted for Clinton, for Obama, twice, and am appalled by Trump. Doesn't mean that I'm so blinded by partisanship that I'll just ignore reality when it conflicts with what I would like to believe.

[Tipperary]

44. That bothers me too. I dislike hypocrisy.

[bettyellen]

88. Nominally on our side? HA. That is complete bullshit.

[lapucelle]

95. Not only are many genuinely appalled by the absurdist tribalism on display over this,

but they are also well aware of who benefits from the narrative. It's not my side.

Until the FBI tells me otherwise, I believe Joy.

[MrsCoffee]

107. +1

[George II]

121. What is this "tribalism" or "our side" of which you speak?

[Spider Jerusalem]

123. "We have to unthinkingly defend Joy Reid because she's a progressive!"

there's an awful lot of that, around here.

[George II]

129. I didn't see anyone say that.

[Spider Jerusalem]

130. Not in so many words, but that's the general sentiment.

Inconvenient and uncomfortable facts become "fake news". Obvious and transparent lies are blindly defended. All because someone is on "our side".

[George II]

133. You don't like that (possible) transparent lies are blindly defended.....

....yet we're supposed to blindly condemn someone for what has been referred to on this forum, even by some who do condemn her, as things "she may or may not have said". So even though some still recognize that she may not have said these things she should be condemned. And then if it is determined that she didn't? Oh, the ol' SNL Emily Litella "never mind".

Sorry, I'm not going to do that based on highly questionable and very old "evidence".

[Spider Jerusalem]

140. I'm condemning her for lying about it.

Her decade-old blog posts would be utterly irrelevant if she'd admitted them and apologised for their content.

[George II]

142. You know definitively that she's lying, without a doubt?

[Spider Jerusalem]

146. I'm 100% certain of it.

Because one of the supposedly "fake" posts appeared on DU in 2007, for a start. Which, you know, renders the idea of a "hack" at some later date highly unlikely.

[leftofcool]

39. I think we should throw every Democratic female journalist that has ever said something

not politically correct under the bus and let's don't stop with journalists. Lock them all up and start with Hillary and Obama because, after all, they "evolved." We can move on to Joy then Rachel Maddow because I hear the progressives are coming for her next. Rachel will probably be okay since she is White. When you've gotten rid of everybody, please let me know how that "blue wave" worked out for you because this new petition by the fat left crowd to get rid of Joy has already backfired. Black women are up in arms over this bullshit smear campaign and if Joy goes, so do they. Those same women who have carried Dems over the line to win say they are done with Democrats. They are done with the whole frigging thing. It doesn't matter if Joy said those things. It doesn't matter if she lied about being hacked. All they see and what I see is a smear campaign which is exactly what it is. So, if purity is what the far left wants, good for them. And as far as 2020 goes, the DNC better run a Black female candidate. Just saying............

[Spider Jerusalem]

41. Like I said...

I wouldn't have a problem if she'd owned it and apologised, and said "the words I wrote over a decade ago no longer represent my views", or something. But lying about being "hacked", which is easily disproven by available evidence from multiple web archives with timestamps? That's something else.

[George II]

58. "A history"? What constitutes a "history"? Is there a time frame involved to determine "history"?

[Spider Jerusalem]

63. Consistently on her blog from c. 2005-2008, or so, and on Twitter through at least 2012?

Looks like "a history", to me, anyway.

[George II]

66. Now it's "consistently", from 13-10 years ago. Indeed.

[pnwmom]

158. Can you point to a single one in the last five years? Eight years?

Wouldn't that indicate a change of heart, even if none of those unanswered posts had been altered?

[Spider Jerusalem]

166. No, it'd indicate an awareness of changing climate.

Neither you nor I can claim to know what's in someone's heart.

And "unanswered"? Her site apparently used a now-defunct comments plugin called Haloscan which ceased operation in 2010. None of her archived posts has any comments.

[hughee99]

174. I believe she now understands that she has a wider audience than she did back in the days

of her blog posts, and there's certainly opinions she's no longer free to express. I'm disappointed by the effort some DUers have been making to try to pressure people into accepting her apology. In the end, they know nothing they write will change someone's mind if they don't feel her sort-of-apology is acceptable, but they may be able to intimidate that person into keeping their opinions to themselves.

[Blue_Adept]

3. I agree

But at the same time, the thinking around these parts has always been that if a republican did this, they wouldn't be believed or only did it because they're affected by it personally, such as a family member coming out.

But if a Democrat does it, they're evolving.

It's part of the tribal aspects that's always worrying, the "my side is the good side."

[Kingofalldems]

11. I absolutley believe my side is the good side.

[hlthe2b]

21. I think if a progressive said abhorrent things consistently, there would be no doubt...

we'd all be up in arms. But, I just don't know a single DUer, who, if honest, would say they wouldn't regret some of their old posts--even if only because they led to a misunderstanding of intent.

I have to admit there are a few on the less extremist conservative side that seem to follow that same principle--allowing benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. The recent canning of conservative columnist Kevin Williamson (who we all knew to be a horrible "hang the women who gets an abortion" advocate in the past) by David Frum occurred only after it became self evident he retained and continued to defend those views. While I don't think he should ever have been hired (if I were a conservative) because to me, a pattern was already clear, at least Frum stepped in after it became overwhelmingly obvious.

So no... I don't think there is any widespread hypocrisy in looking for a consistent, continuing pattern of "bad" behavior before casting the proverbial stones.

[treestar]

57. I could see judging a Democrat differently

Democrats do think; they could change their minds by the use of reason. Republicans don't tend to do that. That's why we aren't on their side.

[Blue_Adept]

65. I'm just wary of a mix of absolutism and hypocrisy

combined with the kind of tribalism that exists. I have no horse in this particular game, I don't watch MSNBC, I don't think I've ever read any of her articles. But the kind of intensity that it's generating is unnerving as it's dominating so much of the conversation here.

[bettyellen]

76. The kind of intensity it is generating is a huge red flag for me. Plus Greenwald- hasnt he

pushed some Wiki bullshit before that involved edited Tweets or emails?

Also, I’ve seen ample evidence that Democrats are better people with better values. The pile of evidence has never been higher, and what Reid consistently does is not allow the RW bullshit to stand unaddressed. She has grown into one of the best interviewers I have ever seen. I’m not surprised the RW would be pushing this using their “far left” cohorts like Greenwald.

[Caliman73]

83. It is a mixture of things that are driving this situation.

One is that Reid has been staunch and fairly effective in combating a great deal of conservative messaging in media. She is a tough interviewer. Two is that the attacks appear to have come from right wing sources, fed to people critical of some facets of Democratic Party politics, and may be using the situation to damage an effective media personality. Third is the possibility that the attacks are based on illegal activity, which has been claimed by Reid.

There seems to a great fear here at DU that Progressives are under constant attack by Russian bots, Conservatives, and people who may naturally be inclined to be activated by words and behaviors that violate progressive values (legitimately reported or not). Reid is the latest manifestation of what many here at DU think happened to Hillary Clinton during the election, that happened to Al Franken, and was attempted against Lawrence O'Donnell.

As Progressives, we can't really ignore the words and actions of people on our side, even if we like them and even if they are really good on our side (Weiner, Edwards, etc..) like people on the right seem to do regularly. There has to be, and there often is, nuance and a way of dealing with the situation that is not so extreme.

In Reid's situaiton, we need to see if the claim of hacking is accurate or not. Then we need to decide how to respond to Reid either way. Then we need to address the larger issue of the use of language to denigrate people based on core identity (I.E. Transexual slurs, Gay and Lesbian slurs, POC slurs, anti-women slurs, disabled slurs, etc...). I think that we can do that in a constructive way, but what we really need to do is NOT allow right wingers to dictate how respond.

[progressoid]

99. +1

[Funtatlaguy]

4. Hillary said some weird stuff about Nancy Reagan

after her death regarding the early days of the Aids epidemic.
I forgave Hillary for that error which she apologized for.
I can forgive Joy too for whatever stupid stuff she may have once said.
We need good strong rare progressive media voices that challenge and speak truth to power.
Don’t throw her under the bus. It’s counter productive.
Accept her apology and move on.

[dsc]

6. Hillary didn't claim not to have said it and been hacked

which is a pretty big difference.

[NCTraveler]

101. That would be strange.

She made the horrendous comments on camera.

Clinton never got a pass from me on those comments. Including to this day. I do still support Clinton.

[dsc]

108. so let me get this straight

what she did 20 plus years ago is fair game for you to refuse to support her but if we have issues with Joy Reid's blog 10 years ago and her lying to our faces about it now we are out of line. Simply unbelievable.

[NCTraveler]

111. "to refuse to support her"

Where did I say I refuse to support her?

20 plus years ago? What are you talking about?

This is how difficult it has become to hold your line. Stating things I never said and not knowing about Clintons comments.

You are on a roll. It's how your arguments must go in order to hold your inconsistent line.

[pnwmom]

159. Don't drag Hillary into this. Her mistake of being too nice about Nancy is NOT comparable. n/t

[Funtatlaguy]

164. Nancy and Ronald Reagan were responsible

For the deaths and stigmatization of millions of Americans at the genesis of the AIDS crisis.
Hillary’s comments were jaw droppingly wrong.
And it was on live tv.
To her credit, she quickly backtracked afteur all of the public outrage.

My point in comparing Hillary with Joys comments is that when someone on our side says something awful but apologizes, we must forgive them and move on.
We simply can not afford a circular firing squad of our own with a lunatic in the White House and a Trump subservient Repub House and Senate and 5-4 disadvantage on the Supreme Court.
We need all Dems And Progressive media member allies fighting to change things in November.

If Joy was homophobic at one time, I don’t think she is now.
She’s an outstanding interviewer. I’d hate to see her voice silenced.

[dsc]

5. I honestly have no idea

If she, in the face of the latest unearthed posts, had said, yeah and I wrote those and I don't believe this anymore that would be one thing. Instead she told, what evidence shows, is a out and out lie about the posts being faked.

I am a fan of her tv show. I watch it when I am not busy on weekend mornings. I sometimes even dvr it to watch later. But I have a severe problem with a journalist telling bald faced lies to my face and that is what I think she did. I probably would have accepted a mea cupla given her recent work. But she didn't just disagree on marriage equality. She literally said gay men are attracted to teen boys and that civil rights groups target teens and is now lying to our faces about having said it. I don't think I can get past that.

[IphengeniaBlumgarten]

7. There are many real monsters, but Joy Reid is not one of them.

Maybe she made an egregious mistake several years ago or maybe she was hacked. I don't know. She is making a valuable contribution now and in the recent past and let us focus on the real current dangers to acceptance and tolerance and democracy and all the things that matter NOW.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

162. This🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝

[monmouth4]

8. This constant talking/writing about Joy will just keep it going. Let it sink..nt

[pwb]

9. Russian bots?

Fox news? Thought we stopped taking their bait? She is great.

[Eyeball_Kid]

10. Sometimes...

Reid has moments in which she is condescending, sarcastic, and passive aggressive. Those are occasional. More often, her reporting AND her interviewing are powerful and insightful. As she is a human being who works on a network that allows for anchor persons to express opinions and commentary, we should expect to see more than straight-up reporting that CAN expose aspects of personality. I'd prefer that she exercise more control over how she expresses her emotions, but that's just me. When she's on the screen, my impulse is to keep watching, because she can illuminate news items in a way that others don't or can't.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

13. Here here.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

12. Uh

She said men kissing bugged her. Not MUCH worse than that. Gay folks have the right to do what they want, but, everyone has to be mindful of their audience when out and about. Just bc I support peoples right to do what they want doesn't mean I'm pumped up to watch people in flagrante' at any level. That includes a heterosexual couple eating each others face on the bus-or where ever-as well. And no..I didn't go see Broke back Mountain bc it just didn't sound appealing to me. Not bc I'm a hater.
Please. Not another day of Joy Reid posts. We are the big tent party. Who cares? I'm pretty sure most gay people have heard and experienced much worse. Can we move on?
For the folks fixated...dig up a nasty gop representative who's in ELECTED OFFICE, and have at it. The whole topic is a few days too old. Those that won't let it go...DESPITE THEIR POST COUNT...should be noted for future diatribes. Trolling isn't just for bots anymore.

[Tipperary]

14. I could not care less what she might have said years ago.

But if it turns out she has lied, that will be terrible for her credibility.

[Oneironaut]

15. We simply dont know. The onus is on the accuser to prove an accusation.

Her latest posts were over 10 years ago. This whole thing is really weak. If she were a Republican, I would say the same.

[kpete]

16. Being a liberal means having an open mind (mho)

[MicaelS]

74. Do not be so Open Minded you let your brains fall out.

That question everything is just adolescent rebellion. I do not question peer-reviewed science, no matter the rhetoric of people like the Anti-Vaxxers, Austism Speaks, and Anti-GMO types, just to mention a few things.

Everyone screws up at some point in life. The real question is WHY people keep digging up shit from years ago? And why do they keep harping on Reid's past conduct?

People can make mistakes and change. I would hate to have my old posts from 15 years ago on another website brought up here.

This is just another example of the Left's circular firing squad mentality.

[betsuni]

17. I'm going to go ahead and predict that Joy will end up being Al Frankened.

Everyone said, oh, nothing will happen to Al, nobody wants him to step down. Well.

[leftofcool]

20. I expect she will resign soon.

Too bad that the smear campaign worked.

[hlthe2b]

22. Gawd, I hope not... and I will be very angry if that happens

Just as I remain re: Franken.

[leftofcool]

24. I will too

[Spider Jerusalem]

31. I don't see how it's a "smear campaign"

if she ends up resigning it's her own damned fault for not owning up to her past words and apologising for them.

[leftofcool]

40. Of course you don't. I would not expect you to see it.

[m-lekktor]

116. Nope, MSNBC would fear being accused of racism if that were to happen.

It's much easier just to tell us pesky gays to get over it!

[irisblue]

19. I do not. nt

[stonecutter357]

26. just the JPR types .

[Gothmog]

27. I do not believe any of the attacks on Joy Reid

[Eliot Rosewater]

113. Neither do I and I do know why she is being attacked and by who, but apparently we cant

discuss that

[elocs]

34. Well I'm on this website and since I don't follow any talking heads I had no idea who she is

until I read of the story about her.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

37. This discussion (in general) is basically like a dog chasing our tails

Expending a lot of time and energy but accomplishing nothing. It's a distraction that somebody got going.

[oasis]

43. Some DUers become nauseated at the very hint of a lie.

It's an unpardonable sin.

[treestar]

48. As if there are not white lies or smaller ones

and that the big ones are the ones doing damage. Never cared that Bill lied about Monica; that's a thing you'd expect people to lie and try to get away with. It is not the same as say, Russian colluding. Perspective is important.

[oasis]

56. True that. "Perspective is important". Our union president was no saint

but was a master in the art of the bargain. Hundreds of thousands of members benefited. He was reelected every two years, spanning two decades.

[Blue_true]

172. So Bernie.

Saying his wife is preparing his tax returns and will have them done in a few weeks, turns your stomach? Or that his wife can't find past copies of his tax returns, turn your stomach? You believe Joy is lying, lots of people believe Bernie is lying. I guess one person's lie is another person's truth, eh?

[oasis]

190. Joy is in a position to harangue Trump about his tax returns.

If Bernie were to become the Dem nominee for 2020, I'm sure he'd rather the subject of taxes never come up in a debate with Trump.

I'm sure a few stomachs will be turning before the TRUTH is finally revealed.

[treestar]

46. No, she is not

Someone pointed out she could have grown up in a church that taught homophobia outright - I grew up in one that is anti-choice. Someone else called that no excuse - which is stupid. If you can change to a rational opinion overcoming the brainwashing of childhood - what is the point of discounting that? That's the one chance you parents get to have you brainwashed, and you are going to believe what your parents tell you at least up to some point.

[PatrickforO]

52. Not me. Now, let's get back to criticizing and resisting

the Republican/Trumpian destruction of our society.

[irisblue]

73. this nt

[Iggo]

53. Anybody who AlFrankens her is dead to me.

I ain't fuckin' playing anymore.

[stevenleser]

82. You are halfway there to where I think we need to be. We should make it clear that the CANDIDATE of

those who do this is also dead to us if this continues.

[Iggo]

110. Yep, Anyone. (n/t)

[Freethinker65]

54. Probably not, probably never was.

IF she wrote the posts, she was probably just searching for clicks to her blog/twitter account, trying to gain followers. I would say then she never intended the posts to be hurtful.

The question of if she is a good steward for liberal causes depends on if she is truly a liberal today.
If you are smart and good at debate, you can convincingly argue from either side of an issue (even if you are ambivalent to the issue or vehemently oppose one side). It seem obvious many pundits, politicians, and media personalities are more entertainers than idealogues, playing to their audience. Seriously, look at all the hypocritical behaviors that get exposed.

Only Joy knows for sure who she is.

[George II]

59. "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

[Pathwalker]

61. Amen! But to the purist Puritans, no one, not even the author

of those words is pure enough. Except them, of course. I've come to despise them.

[quickesst]

62. Agree....

If Joy Reid's critic's knew their past statements and actions would automatically be subject to public display as a result of their criticism, most of the stones held in their hands would have been dropped to the ground.

[MoonRiver]

64. I think she's wonderful!

Hers is one of the few shows I plan ahead every week to watch.

[nolabear]

68. Stephanie Miller and Charlie Pierce voiced support.

Says Malcolm Nance mentioned the hack a while back.

[PurgedVoter]

69. We evolve.

A lot of things I believed and supported 15 years ago, were wrong. There would be no point in my reading and learning if I was not going to evolve. Wisdom is gained. It is not something we are born with.

In some of the most liberal communities of the seventies there were times where I spoke out. Some of the things I said and received applause for embarrass and shame me now. As a child I spoke as a child, but I don't take that as an excuse. We don't know what we don't know, but if we excuse ourselves endlessly we cease to evolve.

Joy Reid is outspoken and strong in her speech. I expect that a lot of things she says now, will be questionable in 15 years. As long as she is evolving she will have specters in her closet that do not match with her current views.

It is the other side that does not believe in evolution.

[MicaelS]

70. The real question is WHY...

Are people digging up shit from years ago? And why do they keep harping on Reid's past conduct?

People can make mistakes and change. I would hate to have my old posts from 15 years ago on another website brought up here.

This is just another example of the Left's circular firing squad mentality.

[MrsCoffee]

77. Well someone in another thread just said there will be NO BLUE WAVE if Joy is done.

Also said that it's being rumored that black women won't vote if she is ousted.

Which is ridiculous to most of us in the reality based world, but seems to be a big motivator for those who think it will sink the Democratic Party somehow.

[MicaelS]

79. I certainly doubt that, BUT...

Like the saying from Goldfinger...

Once is happenstance. (Franken)

Twice is coincidence. (Reid)

The third time it’s enemy action.

[stevenleser]

80. It's one slice of one candidate's supporters doing this. They think this supports their candidate

They think data mining past comments to destroy prominent people who don't like their candidate is the way to support their candidate.

What the rest of us need to do if this continues is to band together and make it clear that if this nonsense does not stop, we will do everything in our power to prevent that candidate from becoming President under any circumstance. That is the only thing that will make this stop, to make it clear it will cause as much damage to their preferred candidate as it would cause to his opponents.

[MicaelS]

84. Great post.

If that is what is happening, it should not be tolerated at all. If this is Sanders supporters doing this, he is dead to me, and I supported him during the Primary season. Shades of PUMA.

[LostOne4Ever]

138. Not much of a threat, You would do that anyway. Nt

[stevenleser]

139. I would oppose him for the primary anyway. In not talking about that. nt

[LostOne4Ever]

143. You mean you are advocating not supporting a dem presidential candidate in the general? Nt

[stevenleser]

151. As a consequence for certain behavior if it continues and if Sanders gets the nom.nt

[LostOne4Ever]

152. It is your vote and your right to do with it as you please

I wont fault you for that.

[stevenleser]

153. I'll try to get as many people as possible to do the same

and I will try to get as many folks as I know to pledge with me that if people who are pushing Sanders continue this behavior they will also work to prevent him from getting votes if he gets the nomination.

The point is, those folks using these methods in an effort to promote Sanders will be killing their candidates chances by doing so.

[questionseverything]

188. so here on du you are openly saying you will work against the dem nominee?

well that is the job at fox right?

while I am not surprised at your threat, I am surprised at your openness about it

<shrugs>

[stevenleser]

189. Nope, only if one person is the nominee and only if some of their supporters continue certain

behavior.

And don't be so indignant, your preferred candidate in 2016 made the same threat. And he also goes on Fox.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

141. Lol. Right?

[TheSmarterDog]

154. Taking away a person's livelihood on false accusations isn't a threat?

[LostOne4Ever]

156. He threatened to do everything he could do to prevent Bernie from ever being president

However, based on his other comments on DU we already he would be doing that anyways even if this current kerfluffle hadn’t happened.

So nothing really changes even if this people keep on acting this way. Ergo, it is not much of a threat.

That said the actual threat is more in post 139. If Bernie was to become the democratic nominee Steve would do whatever he could to see that Trump (or whoever the Republican nominee running against him) wins:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10549192

139. I would oppose him for the primary anyway. In not talking about that. nt

[TheSmarterDog]

160. We're talking about Joy Reid, not a particular politician.

No politician has a special right to be president over every other candidate. None of them are chosen by God, they're chosen by the people. Having the previous poster state his preference does nothing to diminish any particular candidate's rights.

OTOH Trumps supporters like to issue death threats to journalists who they deem to be not friendly enough to him. How long before the worshipers of a certain non-Democratic candidate start doing the same?

If they can get Joy Reid unfairly fired & blackballed (which is exactly what they're trying to do), what's to stop them? Where do YOU draw the line?

[LostOne4Ever]

163. No, I was responding to the post talking about what that poster threatened to do

That is what I was talking about.

Never said a word about any politician having a special right to be president. But for the record I agree. No one has a special right to be president. The people should choose as you said. I very much agree with that. Both in the general and in the primary. The people.

Never said the poster's perference diminishes anyone's rights. I was just pointing out that the threat kinda lacked any teeth given that Steve would be doing that anyways.

There are extremist supporters of every candidate. Trump just has more than most as he appeals to the worst in human nature unlike liberal candidates like Obama, Bernie, Pelosi, ect who appeal to the best in people.

Whether joy is being treated unfairly will depend on the results of the investigation. I will take the FBI's take on it.

That is my line.

[stevenleser]

168. When that person gets finished manufacturing outrage at my statement...

Remind him that on March 20, 2016 Sanders said in CNN “If Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, my supporters and I may decide not to support her”

[TheSmarterDog]

169. REEEAAALLY?? This is veeery interesting!

And has Mr Sanders ever .... walked back this statement? Apologized for it?

Has any of his fans ever admonished him for it? Or even expressed any disappointment?

Signed,
waiting with baited breath

[stevenleser]

170. Nope, nothing of the kind.

I think he and they would prefer we don’t remember that or when he said the most qualified candidate in history “Wasn’t qualified to be President”

[LostOne4Ever]

173. Keep on refighting those primaries!

Cause the rules of this site don’t apply to you or your tribe.

[stevenleser]

175. Not refighting the primaries, take a look again at the OP and remind yourself of why we are here

This isn’t the primary we are discussing, it’s present day events.

[LostOne4Ever]

176. Really? Then why bring up something that happened during the primary

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10552550

You are the one who brought that up. Not once but then again in this post:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10554696

How is this present day events? I thought the year was 2018 not 2016?

[stevenleser]

177. Because the behavior has continued to present day. This isn't hard. nt

[LostOne4Ever]

181. Then that makes it refighting the primaries

It has continued into the present day too.

This isn’t hard.

Unlike following the rules apparently.

[stevenleser]

182. No, it doesn't. There is a present day event that we are discussing.

Look, I and everyone else reading this can see through what you are doing. It’s not clever. Attempting to couch my argument as being against the rules so you can get it hidden because you have no counter-argument to my pointing out despicable behavior by a group that you align yourself with.

We all get it. And it’s not clever or a nice try.

[LostOne4Ever]

185. What happened regarding Sanders back in Mar 2016 IS A PRIMARY ISSUE

By definition.

And no that is not what I am doing. I would actually have to believe that the rules apply to Sanders haters to do that. But the constant hatchet jobs against him and his supporters here on DU (despite the rules saying he is off limits and to stop refighting the primaries) show that is not the case.

I have long ago given up on alerts.

Further would I have stopped replying to you after post 152 if that was my intent? It was your friend in post 154 that restarted things and even then I wasn’t replying to you until you accused me of being outraged.

Oh I get it! I made your friend reply to me with my psychic powers! I made you make that remark! And I also made you both say you wouldn’t support a possible dem presidential nominee in the general AND made you bring up stuff from the primary twice!


Or I am just pointing out how the rules don’t apply to you and Sanders haters. Ever heard of the law of parsimony?

[stevenleser]

186. Now you are grasping for straws. You need to do the honest thing and simply admit

you lost the argument.

[LostOne4Ever]

187. Ok, I admit you lost the argument.

How about actually arguing the point instead of declaring victory and shitting on the chess board like a pigeon?

Let’s start with how I magically got you and your friend to continue a done discussion?

I miss the old you from before the primary when you actually would discuss things. But ever since the primary this whole site has gone insane.

Whatever.

[LostOne4Ever]

171. What outrage?

Does this sound like outrage to you?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10549456

Our conversation was finished until the person you are replying to misunderstood what I said.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10549779

Then they went on a tangent to which I replied.

But, to respond to your comment, in the end Sanders did what I did and supported Clinton. Believe it or not we aren’t the enemy. But Some on DU just refuse to move on and just keep on pouring salt on old wounds.

[mcar]

75. I think she's great!

[dajoki]

78. I love Joy!

[leanforward]

81. She is not.

[FailureToCommunicate]

85. Purity tests only serve the opposition. And furthermore...

[Pepsidog]

86. Joy Reid is a hero of the resistance

[trickyguy]

89. There has been so much change

In the LGBT civil rights movement in the last few years
Couldn't we cut Joy Reid a little slack for possibly changing her mind about those issues.
That is if she did at all.

She's only human like the rest of us.
And I think she's terrific.

[WomanWhoRoars]

90. just my 2 cents....

I like Joy - I consider myself a fan. I agree that we've all said crap we shouldn't have. HOWEVER, if it turns out that she has lied about the hacking ( which looks like she MAY have ) and got the FBI involved in a goose chase, it's all over for her. I pray that's not the case but her story seems flimsy to me.

[hotrod0808]

91. Look at the root word of

"Progressive." None of us are perfect individuals with perfect behavior. I am not the same person I was 10 years ago, let alone ten years before that. Some of us find new patterns of thinking when we meet people different from us, some with a change of economic status, some when they merely get sober after a chemically altered lifestyle. If she wrote what she did, then surely as an academic and TV host she has changed her mind considerably. If she did not, then see the writing of Malcolm Nance to understand what is going on with this new campaign. I stand with Joy Reid, and so should others who value minds and courage greater than our own.

[solara]

92. A reminder of what innuendo, gossip and plain ol'

self righteous indignation can do to us.....in a word.... or actually two...

AL FRANKEN

We lost an important, courageous, brilliant progressive voice because fellow Dems were so eager to throw him under the bus..to show the world how NON bias they were

Give me air


We simply cannot afford to continue this constant in-fighting, bickering and back-biting that the Vichy GOP & Russian operatives count on and exploit. Let's, please learn from the results of our eagerness to eat our own so we can stand strong together. The regressives have done it very well for years and they have even less of a moral/ethical pool to draw from than the Democrats. If we cannot manage to stand together, I truly believe we are doomed. This is real.

I stand with Joy Reid. She makes a huge difference and we need her voice.

[nolabels]

184. We cannot be advocates for truth while requesting silence

And it is simpler for me to say the views I had about life today are not the same as I had ten or twenty years past. The idea that one size does not fit all has much logic.

Ronald Reagan has been the poster boy of the conservatives, yet early on in his career, he had believed in core Democratic values. Reagan attuned nascent behavior only happened when wealth and power were flushed his way.

Our core values are only changed when we let the things from the outside change them. Not engaging in interaction on why they are important only serves to tarnish them

Lastly let me say, they who have not laughed, besmirched or ridiculed at others in other times of their lives please step forward

[CentralMass]

93. She has opinions and they seem to have evolved..

I looked at some of what's being talked about .

Archived (now blocked) blog entries of hers from the 2008 primary appear to show her as a strong Obama supporter not shy about being critical of Hillary. She posted question like has Hillary become the white racist candidate. Or asked has Hillary gone insane and is she having a psychotic episode ? Those are paraphrased from memory of what I read. She also seems to have had a favorable opinion of Bernie Sanders. There were also homophobic comments that she has admitted saying.

It would appear that she has changed since becoming an MSNBC host. She now loves Hillary and doesn't like Bernie or his supporters. The homophobic comments seem to be a thing of the past. I'm not sure what up with the hacked archives.

So in the realm of political pundits on cable tv she IMO rates low on the scale of offensive personalities. I just don't care to watch any of them anymore.

I suspect she may still harbor some different beliefs but they dont appear to be surfacing in her new role.

[WomanWhoRoars]

94. Its fine

It's fine to evolve - it's not ok to lie about it and file a false report with authorities. PLEASE LET ME BE WRONG!!

[Drunken Irishman]

96. Good post. I don't think she is now - but she's kinda looking like a liar who won't own to her past.

That's disturbing. It's indefensible. People change. But what we know is that her continued push that her site was hacked means A) she's not taking responsibility and accountability for her actions, even if they were years ago and B) she's now lying about it. That's not a good look for Joy.

And I think DUers know me well enough to know I am NOT a Bernie supporter - never have been and never will be. I am disappointed that she continues to lie and deflect instead of owning her hateful language and admitting she's a better woman today than she was a decade ago.

[WomanWhoRoars]

97. Thanks you Drunken Irish....

I'm not a Bernie supporter either. I think Joy is awesome - that's why this disturbs me so.

[MountCleaners]

98. I like Joy Reid and can accept someone's change, but....

What about all of the people - myself included - who never held those attitudes in the first place - ten years ago or otherwise? Shouldn't those people be given more credit and respect?

Personally, I'm tired of reading stories about how bigoted or ignorant someone was ten years ago or fifteen years ago - if they were an adult then, there really is no excuse. It's not that hard to accept GLBT people and I just don't want to normalize the attitude that two people of the same sex kissing or having sex is gross by saying something like, "we all had dumb ideas ten years ago." Sorry, I had the same ideas then that I do now.

[NCTraveler]

100. I think she is learning and is not consumed with hate.

She is smart yet doesn't think she knows it all. She is willing to admit faults and fight for what she sees as being right.

I will make no absolute comment as to her being or not being transphobic or homophobic. I will say she is a glaring example of what grassroots movements can do with respect to honest people willing to self-reflect. A willingness to learn and change.

[Liberalhammer]

102. No

Anybody who wants her gone now, is complicit with TRUMP and the Russian smear campaign.

[progressoid]

104. Ha ha ha haa. So much hypocrisy.

It's amusing how many say she's allowed to evolve and change. Or, she apologized so all is forgiven.

Yet the same dispensation isn't given to other people on the left. Isn't that odd.

[uponit7771]

105. Like whom? thx in in advance

[boston bean]

109. Really. You think I am hypocritical?

[m-lekktor]

145. you got that right.

it's sickening.

[Funtatlaguy]

165. I kinda agree and disagree with this.

Yes, forgiveness is selective.
Al Franken is a good example.
He was sexually inappropriate NOT sexually abusive. Still got lumped in with predators.

[OnDoutside]

106. No, of course not. I detest this whataboutery that infects the Dem side.

[Blue_Tires]

112. She's fine

Certain Bros and Beckys on the left have had a stick up their ass about Reid, Gandy, Kamala Harris and a lot of other prominent black women since 2016 at least...

The fact that Glenn Motherfucking Greenwald is involving himself in this proves beyond all doubt that the fix is in...

Just remain calm and ride it out.

[TheSmarterDog]

125. "...prominent black women..." I think there's the problem right there.

Where do they get off thinking & having opinions & stuff?

[democratisphere]

126. Not here. Joy Reid is good with me!

[tavernier]

137. Every Fox News watcher in the country!

Fortunately, I developed an immunity to bullshit after many years of having it smeared in my face.

[m-lekktor]

147. I couldn't care less what Joy Reid is or isn't. nt

[Cha]

148. Reasons #IStandWithJoyReid:

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[smirkymonkey]

149. Nope. Still like her and I am sick of this bullshit.

I'm ignoring it all.

[aikoaiko]

150. I don't think she should be boycotted or go.

I am a Bernie supporter who was very unhappy with her shade and insinuations about Bernie and his supporters.

Still, I think these old posts are just examples of poor judgment and maybe a little homophobia when people new better. I’ve made jokes in poor taste.

The possibility that she’s lying about being hacked is more concerning. Didn’t work for Anthony Weiner. But it is possible that she is being set up. I think she is too smart to try and lie her way out of the posts.

If she is lying now then that’s a legit credibility issue.

[BannonsLiver]

155. I wonder if it's possible

To believe Reid held some disappointing views at some point, evolved like a lot of people have, while also enjoying her work, while also believing her hacking defense has a dog ate my homework vibe to it, but still believe she should be on the air, while also pointing out the sickening hypocrisy of some here who crucified Al Franken yet believe Reid’s story unconditionally?

Actually I don’t have to wonder if it’s possible, because that’s where I’m at right now.

But to your original question, no I don’t believe Reid is a homophobe and would bet my right arm on it.

[Demsrule86]

157. Love Joy Reid...she is not a homophobe. As posted previously I myself 'evolved on this issue.

[jcmaine72]

167. No. Never. She's on our side.

[Chemisse]

180. Ten years ago I thought gay marriage was premature and police treated blacks fairly!

I thought society had to move farther toward acceptance before we could expect such a major step of gay marriage. I though civil unions were a good stepping stone toward that distant goal. I was very happy to be proven wrong on this.

I can't believe I (a liberal white person) was so deluded for so long about the treatment of persons of color in our society. I first became suspicious after Sean Bell in Queens was killed on his wedding day. The rationale seemed oddly weak. I think it was the Eric Garner killing (died via chokehold) that first made me say WTF! The Michael Brown/Ferguson case really pushed me over the edge and made me so incredibly angry. Finally I felt the rage that others have been living with for their whole lives. When that boy, Tamir Rice, was killed on the playground, I finally understood how very different life is for children of color growing up in this country.

We all grow and change over time. We should be cut some slack for our old ideas and comments.