I'm not sure why this comment is getting downvoted and flagged. The point is valid. This is an ad hominem attack with non sequiturs too like "He clearly holds disgust for his subject, which ruins his ability to speak"
It's contentless and cheap. I'd like to hear some counterarguments to Glen's points instead.
Greenwald calls the targets of his ire "Stasi agents".
This is completely unhelpful hyperbole. Where are the political prisoners? The concentration camps? I'm not sure how much good faith should be extended to somebody who isn't arguing in good faith to begin with.
It's only an ad hominem if I say he's wrong because of who he is. This can't be an ad hominem if I don't actually address the argument he puts forward, which I did not do (for better or for worse).
The content I've added is, "This article is hard for me to read because of its tone." Agree or disagree, I found it difficult to get through, and hard to see what Glenn was trying to point out as a result of the tone he chose.
> he's never been very adept at objectivity or impartiality.
> I'm honestly surprised more folks haven't seen through his shtick yet
In these you attack the author rather his points.
Being hard to read for you doesn't discredit the article's arguments either.
I'd rather hear what you dislike about the points being made rather than how they read, because the former is more important to having an actual conversation.
It's contentless and cheap. I'd like to hear some counterarguments to Glen's points instead.