That's the reason this is so insidious. It forces people not just to comply with current social standards. But to comply with the highest possible standard that might just be applied in their lifetime.
10 years ago, it was OK to say "retard". Today we're not quite sure are we. How would you feel if you got gotcha'd in 10 years time with this comment?
Now, as everyone is racing towards to most banal and inoffensive positions, you find that today's social attitudes are changing purely out of fear of tomorrow's. People hesitate to say retard, others notice and hesitate too, as fewer people say it it becomes offensive not because it is but because no one else is saying it.
I think Greenwald leaves a lot to be desired. But I think with this issue he (and others) are well ahead of the curve: a significant minority are hell bent on dumping freedom of speech and they have the leverage to do it.
This is the first thing I’ve seen him wrote in years. And it is horrible.
If this had turned out to be true, it surely would have sparked several news stories. The reason that such a long post by Greenwald was warranted is that the journalist was clearly trying to create a story with the tweet.
And she later noted the clarification that it wasn’t him.
I don’t hold tweets at the same bar as a reputable news publication. Tweets are often point in time, not verified, often on whim.
Grenwald’s blog seemed more appropriate for yellow cake taking us to war than this tweet.
Every single social platform started out where they started and eventually had to moderate bad actors and bad actions.
Greenwald used to do good journalism. And now sells subscriptions to dog-whistles.