Culture War

Joy Reid Blames Mystery Hackers for the Anti-Gay Stuff on Her Old Blog

The MSNBC host kind of sucked on gay issues 10 years ago. So did most Democratic moderates.

|

To the extent that I know who MSNBC host Joy Reid is, it's generally due to some really dumb tweets like this one:

To be honest, it wasn't until I started getting pulled into libertarianism many years ago that I even heard the term "classical liberal" myself. But I also wouldn't presume to confidently define terms that I'm unfamiliar with. It's not clear if she even knows how wrong she was, despite the reams of responses from people correcting her, and the tweet remains online.

Joy Reid
JIM RUYMEN/UPI/Newscom

But she has deleted some decade-old blog writing from when she was a radio host in Florida, and now it's coming back to haunt her.

Mediaite has taken note of some homophobic posts from Reid's blog back around 2005 through 2007. Rather than taking responsibility for the posts and apologizing, Reid, via a cybersecurity consultant, is claiming that the now-defunct site was hacked or somehow manipulated to make it appear that she had written commentary that indicated discomfort with gay affection and gay marriage.

Reid has an admitted history of gay-baiting from the left as a way to attack politicians on the right. She apologized back in December when old blog posts were unearthed in which she frequently speculated that Charlie Crist, a former Republican governor from Florida, was gay. She's far from the only person to make such speculations, but she did it in a nasty, sarcastic way to attack those she saw as ideological opposition.

Back when those Crist posts were unearthed and exposed, she responded, "It was insensitive, tone deaf and dumb. There is no excusing it—not based on the taste-skewing mores of talk radio or the then-blogosphere, and not based on my intentions."

This time, though, she's insisting the newly unearthed homophobic posts were not written by her and that somebody went through the effort to manipulate the history of the site's content—even interfering somehow with the pages archived on the Wayback Machine—in order to "taint [her] character with false information."

Here is Mediaite's summary of some of the uncovered blog posts (and there's a Twitter thread by the person who unearthed the content here):

A 2006 Reid Report post included a compilation of the top five "totally not gay celebrities of the year," which was a satirical attempt—albeit, a lazy one—at suggesting everyone on the list was secretly gay. Singer Clay Aiken and CNN pundit Anderson Cooper both made the list, which—if the publishing date is correct—was posted years before they had come-out publicly.

In another post dated to 2005, the author said Cooper is the "gayest thing on TV" and noted that they have it "on good authority that Cooper is totally gay." He didn't come out publicly until 2012.

Other mentions on the list included the stars of Brokeback Mountain, the previously noted film that the author didn't see because "two male characters having sex" was "too out there."

I have no way of definitively determining whether these posts are real or fake. I certainly wasn't reading her blog at the time.

But if some shadowy force was going through the effort to destroy Reid's reputation, it apparently put in the time to make sure the posts were relevant to the discussions of the time. Who remembers NBA basketball star Tim Hardaway's anti-gay comments from 2007 anymore?

At The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald points out that the baiting, attacking language in the posts Reid insists are fabricated resembles the kind of language she had admitted and apologized for.

Greenwald also rapped the left for ignoring the story, but that seems to be shifting. Mainstream media outlets are picking it up, particularly because the organization that handles the Wayback Machine put out a statement yesterday that it can find no evidence of tampering with their versions of the posts. Furthermore, the well-known national LGBT advocacy and support organization PFLAG has announced that it's withdrawing an award it had planned to give Reid for her support of LGBT issues in the media.

There are two cultural trends the Reid story puts on display. The first is the overwhelming desire in the current culture war to claim the scalps of your ideological foes. We saw it most recently with Kevin Williamson, when those who disagree with Williamson's conservatism managed to get him fired from The Atlantic almost immediately after he was hired. Reid and Reid supporters are in fact using this cultural trend as a defense, stating outright that this is all part of an attempt to get her fired.

The second cultural trend is a weird attempt to purge from history that a good number of liberals have only recently come around on certain gay issues. The scandal isn't really what Reid said 10 years ago. The scandal is that there was an audience for it among Democratic partisans as little as 10 years ago. That history makes some people squirm. It's a reminder that, for all the attacks on conservatives for being anti-LGBT, the Democratic Party didn't fully embraced same-sex marriage until one whole president ago.

Reid's defensiveness is strange, because it's not like gay people—even gay progressives—have forgotten. It took a lot of hard work by gay activists (and gay people just willing to live their lives openly) to change straight people's attitudes and make them less uncomfortable at the prospect of gay couples and families. Now that those attitudes have shifted, some leaders (both political and cultural) want to act as though they were "evolved" all along.

In the event that anybody cares (they do not), I'm not interested in claiming Reid's scalp here, even if it turns out she's lying about her old blog being hacked or manipulated. An NBC spokesperson said this afternoon that they are not planning to take her off the air.

NEXT: FDA Investigation of Adolescent Juuling Could Endanger Adult Smokers

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. On the one hand, it is a free country. Reid doesn’t have to accept or like gays. On the other hand, the Left continues to eat their own. They always think being a loyal party member will save them. It never does.

    1. To be sure, some would say the same goes for websites and pundits that try to establish some street cred by letting their TDS run wild to curry favor with new viewers.

    2. But the left isn’t eating her. She’s still going to be an icon of the #Resistance, solely because she’s a black woman. They’re completely ignoring this story, or going along with “Russians did it!” bullshit.

      1. True. And that should tell gays something about where their place on the pecking order is. Some animals are always going to be more equal than others.

        1. But that assumes they care.

          Jews see how much Dems think of them. Their fondness of Sharpton et al. Yet, Democrats they remain.

          1. Like I said, they always think being a loyal member of the party will save them.

            1. You should take not that Democrats are way better at instilling terror of their opponents into their base than Republicans are. After all, there’s no one to protect a democrat except the party, whereas Republicans have their guns.

      2. I thought you are colorblind.

        1. Reid is a lot like Toejam Tony. So fucking stupid it’s amazing they can tie their shoelaces. Irrelevant in their blissful idiocy to boot.

    3. You said something that resembles reality John.

      The left understands that there’s no point in trying to take down fat, white FOX News hosts for their daily bigotry, because that’s their whole brand.

      1. Assuming it was true that FOX News hosts bigots (I honestly wouldn’t know, but I imagine they have just as many as CNN), it’s patently untrue that the left doesn’t think there’s a point in taking them down. You’re proof positive of that.

        1. I am constantly annoyed by the left’s habit of attacking minor indiscretions of allies to the exclusion of all else.

          1. But that’s how ideologies work is it not?

            The “power” hierarchy in ideologies is “purity of thought”.
            Who ever is the most aligned with the ideals of the ideology is the most powerful.

            Therefore it is only natural for members of the ideology to heavily police themselves to; a) weed out any problematic people who may taint the outside perception of the ideology, b) destroy opponents within the group in order to obtain more power over said group.

            Human nature is really quite simple, and yes Tony it even applies within the holy cult of leftism that you subscribe to.

            1. It’s a contest to see who more closely aligns to the ideology. Part of this is attacking competitors for the ideological impurity.

            2. I’m trying to prevent that from happening. That thing that already happened on the Right long so long ago that it’s now full-on cult of personality.

          2. What about their habit of ignoring major crimes of other leftists?

            -jcr

          3. Yeah, MSNBC being a hotbed of crypto-bigots and gay-bashers is a minor indescretion in the SJW universe. Remember, way back in yesteryear, TrumpO and Dick Cheney were openly pro-gay rights while the dark-age barbarians like Clinton, MSNBC cranks, and Obama proudly trolled for the homophobic vote.

            Neo-cons are always leading on social issues so they can concentrate on War. Progressives eventually adopt neo-con positions on social issues so they don’t get left behind on War.

      2. Forgot to mention the Koch brothers.

        1. This magazine forgot to stop taking their free money.

  2. Do you know who else sucked on gay issues?

    1. FBI Director Hoover?

      1. “FBI Director Hoover?”
        Mr. Tolson disagrees.

    2. Oh myyy.

      1. Was I supposed to go Star Trek with this?

        1. There’s a veritable buffet of double entendre on offer.

    3. Michael Hihn?

          1. You’re just mad you didn’t think of this first.

            1. Not mad. Just proper labeling.

              1. We’re all Tulpa, Michael. There’s a flavor for everyone.

            2. Guys, do we really need all of this…

              *dons sunglasses*

              Hihnfighting?

              1. I like you, Leo.

                1. That makes one of us.

                  1. This is the best damn thread in a while.

              2. Guys, do we really need all of this…

                You asked.

    4. Do you know who else sucked on gay issues?

      Ron Paul is by far the worst, in the history of that issue.

      1. He thought gay marriage was a state issue (like all marriages) and opposed DOMA. That was way before any Democrat or Republican openly supported gay marriage.

        You really suck at this. I thought you were not insane when I read some salient points under the name “Hihn”, but then I realized it was just a fake account. You are most definitely still insane

        1. He is, and always has been, a troll.

          1. Some say troll when their bullshit is exposed.

            1. Then could you edit your about page on your website to make it clear that you post under your name on the Reason comment section (and presumably other comment sections)? You would find more good faith engagement if you did that.

              1. THAT bullshit exposes itself!

                1. Why did you respond to yourself and not me?

                  All I’m asking for is some actual demonstration that you are who you say you are. It shouldn’t be too hard for you to figure out a way.

                  An example is that you could change “He’s” in your about to “He is” or just add some punctuation to the end of that sentence. I would recommend taking the parentheses out and just making that a full sentence or adding a semicolon to the end of the previous sentence and tacking it on.

                  1. All I’m asking for is some actual demonstration that you are who you say you are.

                    Fucking liar. You asked for a specific way .. which was bat-shit crazy!

                    1. Why did you respond to yourself and not me?

                      Now I’m asking for some actual demonstration that you are who you say you are. Any of my suggestions would work. They’re easy and temporary so you don’t have to worry about leaving it that way. Except for the parentheses bit; I recommend leaving that changed.

              2. THAT bullshit exposes itself!

            2. Michael Hihn|4.25.18 @ 3:16PM|#
              “Some say troll when their bullshit is exposed.”

              Most say troll when some imbecilic troll shows up.

        2. He thought gay marriage was a state issue (like all marriages)

          That’s a separate fuckup.

          “I supported the Defense of Marriage Act, … I have also cosponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would remove challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from the jurisdiction of the federal courts”

          The first denial of Constitutional protection since slavery

          He also says “rogue judges” overturned DOMA, using the same argument as Orval Faubus, who used his state militia to impose segregation on 9 black kids. He lies about the 10th Amendment, REJECTS the 9th and 14th amendment and balance of power, thus leaving us DEFENSELESS from state government.

          Tell me how states can have powers never delegated.

          1. Well there are a lot of crickets around this post.

            1. His cult is … a cult. Like Bernie’s,
              Left – Right = Zero


          2. Tell me how states can have powers never delegated.

            Any powers not explicitly delegated to the Federal Government fall to the State or the People directly, for one.

          3. The State’s powers were granted by state constitutions and the people therein.

            1. If it wasn’t for the Federal government, no one would have any rights at all.

              1. That was sarcasm just to be clear.

        3. “He thought gay marriage was a state issue (like all marriages) and opposed DOMA”
          Nope.
          http://www.unitedliberty.org/a…..ng-on-doma

      2. The worst in history? Really?

          1. That seems incredibly unlikely.

            1. You too have been brainwashed? Here’s the proof.

              Anything else?

              1. So what makes him the worst ever is holding exactly the same position as most other Republicans (and most Democrats until very recently)? That seems to be a pretty uselessly hyperbolic position to take.

                1. So ,.. you lost …. and now you claim most Republicans and most Democrats (until recently) supported a ban on homosexuals defending their rights on SCOTUS.

                  Is that why his bill never got our of committee?

                  1. Put those goalposts back where you found ’em. You wrote “Ron Paul is by far the worst, in the history of that issue” – despite Ron Paul’s position being well within the mainstream of both parties until a few years ago. Then, when i pointed out that this is hyperbole, you told me i was claiming something i didn’t claim. Can you at least try to have a coherent point for more than half a comment?

          2. “Of that issue. Easily.”

            Ron Paul, literally worse than (dare I spoil the game) Hitler?

            1. You proggies love your Hitler analogies. Individual liberty is not a game. And you quoted me saying “On that issue” Here’s the proof.
              Anything else?

              1. Considering the “Do you know who else…” game is centered around Hitler, and that Nazi Germany actually persecuted homosexuals, I think it’s a rather salient point.

                While Paul’s stance on gay marriage certainly isn’t compatible with libertarianism, can you at least admit that your hyperbole is wrong?

                1. Liberty is not a game, BULLY.

                  (snort)

                2. Does he any thoughts on Iran and how it treats teh gayzz?

  3. “We saw it most recently with Kevin Williamson, when those who disagree with Williamson’s conservatism managed to get him fired from The Atlantic almost immediately after he was hired.”

    Except Williamson was fired for a single tweet that did not express the complexity of his position, which he explained in interviews before. Reid’s posts were homophobic. And, let’s not kid ourselves, if Williamson had posted half of those tweets he would never have even been considered for a job at the Atlantic and his position at National Review would have probably been in danger too.

    Maybe, we can all just stop playing gotcha with one another. But, I don’t think that will end until the Left realizes that some of theirs will get pick off too. That is the depressing fact of the matter

    1. Also, Joy Reid is kind of dumb. I really don’t understand how losing her could be seen as bad thing from a left-wing perspective

    2. Williamson needs to stop crying and just sue the Atlantic. It is very clear they fired him for being a Christian. Yes, he made offensive statements that pissed off their readers. But, lots of other writers there like Coates, for example, have made offensive statements too and were not disciplined much less fired. Moreover, since the Atlantic fired him, they couldn’t claim he wasn’t qualified. And they can have rules but they have to enforce them equally and not selectively against people of a protected class. And that is clearly what they did here.

      He is running around claiming he was fired more or less because of his religious views. And I think he is likely right about that. He needs to get off his ass and sue. It would be wonderfully entertaining to watch the Atlantic have to defend that suit and it would send a very good message to the rest of the media and corporate America that yes, the CRA prohibits discriminating on the basis of religion. It seems like he would rather cry and be a martyr than actually stand up for himself.

      1. And it’s as if anybody to the Right should be outraged that he is treated…well, like all of the other conservative-leaners who have dealt with that exact bullshit and he didn’t give two shits about.

        “I got fired for making comments”. Hey, welcome to the Right. Take a seat for a little while. Very few conservatives can say anything without mobs trying to ruin their lives.

        1. And Williamson was happily part of that mob when it suited him. And now he and the rest of them expect us to care that fake conservative writers can no longer get high paying jobs to concern troll at mainstream publications. Williamson actually thought his liberal friends liked him and thought he was different from all of those meth head deplorables everyone hates so much. Well, in the immortal words of Otter, “he fucked up, he trusted them”

  4. I’m not interested in claiming Reid’s scalp here,

    Yeah, you don’t want to get Sioux’d.

    1. *Narrows gaze*

    2. Paging Elizabeth Warren…

  5. That history makes some people squirm.

    Do you know what other history makes some people squirm?

    1. Your computer history.

      1. And Micheal Hihn brings it on Crusty. That was funny. Crusty really has lost his fastball. It is getting to be like watching a punch drunk Muhammad Ali these days.

        1. Did you get that dickfor looked at yet?

          1. If your decline wasn’t so boring, it would be kind of sad.

            1. He’s not wrong about that dickfor, John.

              1. What’s this dickfor thing.

                1. Good question. It is some buzzard tick Crusty has developed. It supposed to get a rise out of me I guess. But I don’t have no idea what it means. He seems to find it entertaining. So there is that. But I imagine he will be beating it to death from now on. So it isn’t going away whatsoever it is.

                  1. That dickfor isn’t going away either.

                  2. Why don’t you just ask him what it is, then?

                    1. That is the joke. It is a meaningless word. So whenever you ask him he won’t say and just go on acting like it means something in hopes of it making me angry.

                      Like I said above, he has really lost his fastball. He used to be kind of funny. Not so much now oh well. Like I said it entertains him. Not like I can stop him or have any reason to care beyond morbid curiosity.

                    2. You didn’t ask him, though. I suspect if you did an apotheosis would be reached.

                    3. I did ask him. And he never responded. I have now stopped caring enough to ask him again.

                    4. I didn’t see you ask, John. If you asked we’d tell you what a dickfor is.

                      So why not ask what it is?

                    5. Because I have really stopped caring

        2. That’s the fake, fake Hihn. You can tell by the lack of link on his name.

          1. Yeah. Thanks. I should have noticed that. At this point, is there actually a real Hihn anymore? I have the feeling the real Michel Hihn is probably dead and the name lives on as a trolling franchise.

            1. That’s the most likely explanation. I’ve read through some of the supposed real Hihn’s website and nothing there can explain his complete 180 on personal liberty when it comes to guns. Nor his inability apparently to grasp the clear language contained in Heller.

              Also, no bold all-caps on the site.

              1. I don’t know; a facebook page claiming to be him has similar patterns.

              2. I’ve read through some of the supposed real Hihn’s website

                You’re a braver man than I.

                nothing there can explain his complete 180 on personal liberty when it comes to guns. Nor his inability apparently to grasp the clear language contained in Heller.

                That’s because it’s the ravings of a lunatic.

              3. For libertarians — or any defender of individual liberty — ALL fundamental rights are precisely equal. This none can be absolute, when in conflict with another. How would YOU resolve a conflict between two absolute rights?

                Heller says exactly what I say it does,

                Heller Ruling Page One, Paragraph 2(f)
                … United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies
                Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons

                It’s kinda silly to say that “at the time” means now. It means … at the time … of the citizen’s militia … ratification.

                cont’d

                1. I also cite Miller, to cut through the bullshit on “at the time”

                  US v Miller (1939)

                  The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia — civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

                  The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.” And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

                  EXPLICITLY rejects military weapons … Continues for a few hundred words, in great detail on 2A limits — which is why the NRA was TOTALLY HELPLESS against the Assault Weapons ban (what it’s called) for TEN LONG YEARS..

                  Anything else?

                  1. “Anything else?”

                    Additionally, I struggle with any “libertarian” who believes that rights exist because of a government issued document. If 2A were repealed today, explain how Congress could tomorrow ban the ownership of weapons? It’s not an enumerated power to ban the purchase of something (in fact it was once thought that they had to amend the Constitution to allow for the ban of alcohol). Additionally, the right to self-defense and defense of property is a natural right dating back at least as far as Locke. The right of a populace to defend themselves against tyranny is at least as old as the Magna Carta.

                    For a “libertarian” to imply that governments both grant and revoke your rights is problematic at best.

                    1. Additionally, I struggle with any “libertarian” who believes that rights exist because of a government issued document.

                      You were proven wrong, so revert to a blatant lie.

                      If 2A were repealed today, explain how Congress could tomorrow ban the ownership of weapons?

                      I thought you want to deal with fundamental rights?

                      For a “libertarian” to imply that governments both grant and revoke your rights is problematic at best.

                      Has any done so?

                  2. I like the other Hihn better – (Blue) Hihn.

                    (Orange) Hihn is deranged and witless, so I just skip over his posts without reading them now

                    *color refers to font

                    1. “Orange) Hihn is deranged and witless, so I just skip over his posts without reading them now”

                      I honestly don’t know why I bother anymore.

                2. “It’s kinda silly to say that “at the time” means now. It means … at the time … of the citizen’s militia … ratification.”

                  Actually “at the time” means at the time that the statute is applied based on the quote below. Much like the 1A protects what it is you and I are doing here, although I’m sure that the founders must have knew to include banter on an internet forum as free speech… right?

                  Heller ruling, page 8:

                  Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivo?lous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not in?terpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35?36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

                  1. “It’s kinda silly to say that “at the time” means now. It means … at the time … of the citizen’s militia … ratification.”

                    Actually “at the time” means at the time that the statute is applied based on the quote below

                    That’s not what it means. Miller is the source. Deal with it.

                    He’s ridiculing … you … the CRAZY notion that “at the time” would mean flintlocks..
                    No cherry-picking allowed. The CORE of Scalia’s ruling says this:

                    … as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty….. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

                    The last bold phrase kills the fallacy that you were conned with.
                    This usually leads to mind games, which I have no time for. (Not to imply you would do so)

                    1. P.S. Why did you evade this?

                      “… which is why the NRA was TOTALLY HELPLESS against the Assault Weapons ban (what it’s called) for TEN LONG YEARS..

                      In-con-veeeeeen=yent?

                    2. Yo homie, I’m going to do what you do and ask why you didn’t respond to this.

                      I’ll leave the snark out, though.

            1. I assumed it was you.

              1. I’m totally taking that as a compliment.

              2. No way, man. I don’t care nearly enough to spoof anybody.

                1. Only a psycho.
                  Or a conservatard
                  (same thing)

                  1. The market has spoken, Michael. Join me. Together we can be more than the sum of our parts.

                    Admit it – the idea has possibilities.

                    1. What is Hihn + Hihn? Or would it be MichaeL + Michael?

                    2. Hihn – Hihn = 0, bully.

                    3. Doesn’t that imply that these Hihns are identical, though? I worry about the implications.

                    4. More along the lines of Michael reacting to competition unless he’s okay with being thought of as the less-thoughtful Hihn, but that could be cool too.

          2. This TrHihnity makes my head hurt.

            1. It was much better when we just had A-hole-y Ghost to deal with.

      2. Browser history. Use the common term

    2. Cosby reruns?

    3. History class, if you have ADD?

  6. I certainly wasn’t reading her blog at the time.

    What a humble-brag.

  7. Now that those attitudes have shifted, some leaders (both political and cultural) want to act as though they were “evolved” all along.

    Well duh, only a deplorable would be caught dead on the wrong side of history 10 yrs. into the future.

    1. From here the “all along” act looks a lot more like creationism than evolution.

  8. A “classical liberal” is someone who approves of the Einsenhower tax brackets.

    1. John Locke, liberal before it became cruel

  9. Scott, you don’t owe me an answer, but, do you believe her?

  10. This is nothing new. Plenty of leftists like to take shots at “KKKochsuckesr” or “Teabaggers”. Party of tolerance.

    1. The homophobic slur is one of the go to insults for leftists. They are just tolerant like that.

      1. Colbert had to apologize (although now that I think about it, I’m not sure he did) for the “cockholster” joke at Trump’s expense.

      2. Look no further than Tony for tons of ripe ‘ur gay hur hur’ type comments, which is borderline pathological since I think he’s actually gay.

        1. It seems he is, but you have to remember that Tony really really hates himself

          1. Hey, I got over that. Eventually.

  11. Racist sexist homo…. wait…

    RACIST SEXIST!

    1. Someone needs to compile a dictionary composed only of words ending in -IST.

  12. “until one whole HALF president ago.”

    Obama didn’t support gay marriage until right before his reelection because it was politically advantageous (and 50% of the population supported it) and failed to do anything he promised during in his first term.

    Also, this Russian thing has become a farce.

    1. The “whole” is supposed to be struck-through. HMTL fail.

      1. “until one whole HALF president ago.”

        This sounds either racist or murderous; I’m not sure which.

      2. HMTL fail.

        Try using HTML next time instead.

        1. That must be the problem.

  13. Get back to us if she ever tries to deny homosexuals their defense of fundamental rights — with a bill that would have removed jurisdiction from SCOTUS. Only two scum ever did that. Ron Paul and the other guy.

    This is bad, if true, but trivial by comparison to the faux liberty warrior.

    1. I’m gay, and marriage isn’t a fundamental right. Every argument for gay marriage can be used for polygamy and incest, both of which are far more common in human history, cultures today, and in the wild. The same “Judeo-Christian” values that fostered opposition to gay marriage fosters the irrational opposition to polygamy and incest. This is why the government needs to get out of marriage entirely.

      1. I’m not so sure that it isn’t a ‘civil right’ (I agree that no marriage is a natural right). Should not the government treat all contracts the same?

        But, I think you’re right that all unions between consenting adults should be recognize by the state or better yet have no marriages recognized by the state and divorce contract law from marriages entirely.

      2. Marriage is a civil institution that the law recognizes. Marriage does not depend upon the law to exist. If you have any doubt about that, imagine if tomorrow the government declared all marriages legally null. Would everyone who is married then feel free to date other people and consider themselves single? Hell no.

        The idea that gays needed the government to be married was always a misnomer. Once it was no longer illegal to live openly as a gay couple, gays were free to get married. What they were not free to do was have the government sanction it. But that is a double-edged sword. Sure government recognition gets you some goodies and allows you to force people to recognize your marriage. It also comes at the price of having to go to the government for permission if you want to end your marriage and having the government in many cases dictate the terms of your dissolution in the form of family law.

        Libertarians used to object to government sanctioned marriage because it restricted people’s freedom of contract. Back in the days before government gay marriage and after the ending of the sodomy laws, gays were in many ways freer than straight people. Since the government didn’t recognize their relationships they were free to set the terms of them in ways straight couples were not.

      3. Your gay, but you talk like a raging homophobe. Gimme a break.

        And you suck up to Ron Paul’s LAME excuse. As long as government IS in marriage, equal rights are mandated by the 9th and `14th Amendments. And elementary morality. And it’s a poor argument anyhow,

        Polygamy is not an equal rights issue. Nor is incest (which is easily accomplished) At least you didn’t mention marrying a cat!

        1. You are so dense Hihn. As long as the government is “in marriage” by your logic where does it get off telling anyone they can’t marry anyone they like including animals, relatives and inanimate objects? Like most morons, you don’t understand the difference between distinction and discrimination. Discrimination is a very narrow technical term in this context. It means the government discriminating against someone on the basis of their being in a protected class, which is sex, religion, political view, and race. The list of protected classes never included gays and indeed by a strict reading of Kennedy’s bizarre plurality opinion in Ogberfel still doesn’t.

          What you are doing is confusing distinction with discrimination. Just because the government cannot discriminate on the basis of a protected class doesn’t mean everyone must be treated equally at all times. The government is free to treat people differently as long as it is done consistent with due process and the government has a reasonable justification for doing so. So the government denying gays access to marriage is not discrimination in the legal sense. It was, like denying polygamists, the government making a valid distinction.

        2. PRAY the LIBERTAY AWAY!

          LEFT – RIGHT EQUALS SHIT FUCK BALLZ!

        3. “Nor is incest (which is easily accomplished)”

          My condolences to your sister…


      4. Every argument for gay marriage can be used for polygamy and incest, both of which are far more common in human history, cultures today, and in the wild.

        True, I’ve said that same for a long time. I’m not against gay marriage, I’m against state approved certificates to say you’re married. There’s a difference, at least to me.

        1. There is a huge difference. And good for you for being consistent.

  14. “a weird attempt to purge from history that a good number of liberals have only recently come around on certain gay issues.”

    What’s weird about it? Acknowledging that so many progressives were, by modern standards, “homphobic” within the past decade calls into question the whole narrative of “everyone who doesn’t agree with gay activists on everything wants to put gays in ovens.”

    It’s almost as if the current definition of “homophobia” was made up recently to describe attitudes which used to be fairly common-sensical.

    1. Also, look at illegal immigration. Ten years ago, Democrats were calling them illegal aliens and complaining that they were taking American jobs. Clinton promised mass deportations in his SOTU addresses. Now even using the word “illegal alien” gets you branded a Nazi.

      I have no problems with Democrats coming around, or “evolving” on issues. I just get angry when they turn around and call anybody who might be a few years delayed as being bigoted, Nazi, white supremacist, evil scum, all for having the same views that they had just 2 years ago.

      This strategy only hurts progress.

      1. Depends on the definition of progress, doesn’t it?

      2. Depends on the definition of progress, doesn’t it?

    2. Just to be clear, I’m not accusing Joy Reid specifically of being common-sensical.

      But it needs some major cover-up and ignoring of reality to evade the fact that pretty much the whole world – including gays – was “homophobic” by modern definitions until quite recently.

      Imagine someone 20 years ago saying that bakers would be forced to make gay cakes. Imagine someone 40 years ago saying gay marriage would become “the law of the land.” Anyone making such predictions would have been denounced as a paranoid hater who was delusionally out of touch with reality.

      1. he fact that pretty much the whole world – including gays – was “homophobic” by modern definitions until quite recently.

        Republicans more than anyone (including Paulistas)

        1. More than anyone in the whole world? A world in which ISIS assholes actually throw gay people off of buildings?

          1. I’ve noticed that many Americans who hate anyone right-of-center or who hate the country are pretty ignorant about the rest of the world, except for some miscellaneous details, usually taken out of context, that might support their worldview.

    3. It’s almost as if the current definition of “homophobia” was made up recently to describe attitudes which used to be fairly common-sensical.

      Yeah, if you hold Scott’s article up in a certain light you can almost glean a sense of libertarian, gay-activist apologist off of it. Like gay rights are good but we shouldn’t use it to bludgeon people for not-exactly hateful or violent things they said 20 yrs. ago*. It’s still a pretty sad state of affairs that he’s apologizing on behalf of a ‘victimized’ MSNBC host but still, he’ll eventually get to something resembling not-left libertarianism eventually.

      *Cue Hihn quoting Scalia’s dissent from Lawrence v. Texas.

      1. You have a lot more faith in him than I do.

  15. That’s a perfect way to start an article about Joy Reid.

  16. Does the fact of the Library of Congress stating that those posts were archived back in 2006 change your mind that they are real, and her denials total lies?

    Or do you think someone else put them on her blog 12 years ago, then waited for the perfect opportunity to spring their trap?

    1. The Library of Congress archives blog posts? Where can we read more?

  17. I’d say that the attitudes behind anti-gay persecution are still out there, but aimed at different targets.

    There’s still support for a govt. War on Vice, it’s just that the powers-that-be keep changing the definition of what’s a vice.

    Sodomy is off the list, MJ will probably soon be, too, but there’s still hard drugs, tobacco, and of course new vices like “homophobia.”

    The statist, “everything is either forbidden or compulsory” attitude remains in place, but fashions on what should be forbidden and what should be compulsory are changing, at least in some areas.

    1. An ingroup with no outgroup to exclude from in-ness is practically no group at all! There has to be a Them in order for Us to mean anything.

    2. Needless to say – dividing up human behavior into “forbidden” and “compulsory” makes for a much more contentious public sphere than allowing for a broad category of “stuff the government neither bans nor promotes.”

      Do you want the cops to raid gay bars…or baker shops?

      Do you want the government to wage a war on dope…or operate dispensaries?

      Do you want the government to promote tobacco sales…or help stigmatize smokers and choke those who dodge the tobacco tax?

      1. Calling someone a racist today has the exact effect that calling them a homosexual did a hundred years ago. Nothing really changes except the words.

        1. No john. Just shut up.

      2. I don’t know much about this MSNBC infobitch, but I will say this, the fucking coverup and subsequent bald-face lying is way worse than whatever she said in the past.

        So she didn’t like gays. Now she conveniently loves them. Whatever.

        But this shit is downright creepy, and shows a certain penchant for corrupt behavior.

        1. Exactly that. If she had owned what she said, you could respect that regardless of whether she apologized or not, but she’s a coward.

          I imagine her being whisked off to some kind of exclusive “sensitivity re-training” spa retreat for sainted media demagogues, all expenses paid.

    3. The best example of how arbitrary these things are is the contrast between the drive to legalize and normalize pot with the continuing war on smoking. Pot is now okay and should be legal and accepted but tobacco is so bad that even vaping should be banned because it looks like the person is smoking. People really are nuts.

      1. Yeah, the list of drugs we’re supposed to be at war with at any given time is fairly arbitrary.

      2. Indeed, it’s pretty god damn idiotic considering that smoking pot exposes you to carcinogens that the government otherwise demonizes. The electorate is schizophrenic when it comes to substances, and it’s not purely one party it’s both of them.

        1. The electorate is schizophrenic when it comes to substances, and it’s not purely one party it’s both of them.

          If you’re literally composed of millions of distinct personalities is it still schizophrenia?

    4. Hey, another libertarian!

      1. Fellow-traveller. I’m still not sold on the “equal protection suddenly means treating unlike things alike” bandwagon.

        1. Don’t be silly, everyone knows gay sex results in children that ultimately costs them a lot of money that might make tax breaks for their marriage…more…appropriate.

          You know what, nevermind. Just give them the tax break and hope the polygamous people don’t notice.

          /sarc

    5. If MJ’s off the list does that mean I can listen to thriller without pedobear knocking on my door?

  18. I think the third, and possibly most disturbing aspect unmentioned by her bullshit attempt to blame “TEH HACKZORZ WHUT DUN IT”…

    is that many media figures are calling for people to *believe her bullshit*;

    And the template seems to be following CNN’s Jeff Toobin’s approach –

    iow, if not explicitly saying, “i believe her”, they’re handwaving hard, saying, (paraphrase) “What’s *really* important here is she’s good people”

    Because why? Because TEAM, that’s why.

    Lies in the service of protecting our peers are good lies, said the News Media people.

    Oh, and meanwhile, her “expert cybersecurity consultant” seems to have some issues

    I mean, wtf = major media orgs hire some “loner unaffiliated with any known security-firm” and say, “everyone should trust this guy’s assessment”. Not Kapersky Labs, not some recognized forensic researcher… no just, “dude we paid to say, “hurr durr coulda been russians”

    1. “”@JoyAnnReid is an important and valuable voice, and I support her,” Toobin tweeted.”

      It seems her supporters are being cautious about buying the “hacking” narrative, almost as if they anticipate the narrative is shaky and they’ll need to fall back on “don’t judge this progressive heroine for one slip-up!”

      What they *ought* to say is “look, plenty of people on the left openly avowed these views ten years ago, and even today how many straight people would watch Brokeback Mountain for non-virtue-signalling reasons?”

      But then they’ll have to explain why views which were once common “even among enlightened people such as Joy Reid” (to put it in their terms) are today so toxic they shouldn’t even be uttered.

      Remarks like Reid’s are awkward and ought to be memory-holed, like Daily Worker editorials from between the Hitler/Stalin Pact and June 22, 1941.

    2. Reid is a black woman. The truth or how believable her story is have nothing to do with it. What matters is not the truth of a claim but who is making it. That is what intersectionality is all about. If a black woman says something, any person lower on the intersectionality scale who doesn’t believe her is a racist. And if a black woman does something, any person lower on the intersectionality scale who objects to it is a racist.

      So Toobin, as a white male is required to both, believe her excuse and find her conduct unobjectionable, even if it happened. That is how it works. Toobin knows the rules and is playing by them.

      1. What a fascinating creature you are John. Upthread you’re talking about how the left eats its own. Now you’re saying the left ignores transgressions like this based on the person’s demographic. Which is it again? Hint: if the left were ignoring this, we wouldn’t be talking about it.

        1. It does both. At some point someone higher on the food chain will come for Reid. It just won’t be a white male like Toobin. You really are stupid.

    3. Not Kapersky Labs

      Russian hacking of our democracy.

      *drops microphone*

    4. Because why? Because TEAM, that’s why.

      Lies in the service of protecting our peers are good lies, said the News Media people.

      They get benefit of the doubt like nobody else.

      And it ain’t media alone, by any means.

      The WaPo sure doesn’t seem to mad at the anti-Semitic moron Trayvon White. They’d give nobody to the Right of Mao the benefit they are giving him.

  19. The MSNBC host kind of sucked on gay issues 10 years ago. So did most Democratic moderates people.

    And her excuse is that she got hacked? Really? How hard is to just say “Yes, 10 years ago, like the majority of people in this country at the time, I had some pretty un-woke views on gay rights. But, like many people, my views have since changed.” Have some people really never heard of the Streisand Effect?

    1. “The Streisand Effect” was a pretty good episode of Atlanta.

      1. Is that actually a good show? I didn’t care for the first episode, so I didn’t give it another chance

        1. It’s not exactly “Twin Peaks with rappers” the way Donald Glover describes it, but if you’re into wack-ass magical realism, it’s pretty good.

    2. We need Andrew Breitbart alive so bad. His hijacking of the Weiner conference is still amazing.

    3. y “Yes, 10 years ago, like the majority of people in this country at the time, I had some pretty un-woke views on gay rights. But, like many people, my views have since changed.” Have some people really never heard of the Streisand Effect?

      Because she runs with the kind of people that destroy careers if you ever do anything unwoke.

      1. Is the “Unwoke” something like the “Undead”?

  20. “a weird attempt to purge from history..” Nothing weird about it if you know anything about the history of communism/socialism.

  21. If you watch MSNBC, you’re doing it wrong.

  22. Democrats’ pain at being reminded of their anti-gay-ness ten years ago reminds me of many of their grandparents’ pain at being reminded, in the 1950s, of their scandalously naive comments about Stalin, the USSR, and the Communist Party in the 1930s and during WWII. It takes courage and honesty to admit that, back in the day, you got something, and something big, morally wrong. Not everyone has the necessary courage and honesty.

    1. Chomsky and Cambodia. Bernie and everywhere socialist.

  23. John, I want to know why liberals supporting Joy Reid are terrible people because they don’t shitcan her at the first opportunity for saying things long ago that are 1/10th as bad as things you say about gays on a daily basis?

    I haven’t had enough John bizarro hypocrisy today. It’s a me-specific vitamin and I’m deficient.

    1. Yes Tony. She is black. That means you need to shut the fuck up about whatever she said. Being gay does not make up for the fact that you are white. You better be careful and know your place if you want to stay in the party.

      1. So did you not notice she was black until after you started posting on this thread or what?

  24. An NBC spokesperson said this afternoon that they are not planning to take her off the air.

    I doubt ultimately it will be up to them.

      1. Well, she didn’t insult David Hogg and has virtually no sponsors anyway, so she is safe.

  25. I couldn’t care less about her rants 10 years ago. But lying about it now is plenty of reason to fire her from any journalism position now. As Nixon proved, the cover-up is almost always worse than the crime.

  26. “Classical liberal” is an accurate term for a person who supports New Deal economics and social modernity but does not identify as socialist

    Holy shit. Joy Reid is shriek! It all makes sense now.

    1. [IMG scanners_head_explosion.gif]

    2. “does not identify as socialist”

      But it’s OK if you do, socialists are leaving the closet in droves nowadays.

      1. That’s just because someone in the closet farted.

        1. No, they just ran out of deodorant.

  27. VELMA: “Our investigation shows that the person making these posts was not Joy Reid but…”

    (removes mask)

    CROWD: “Old Man Frumpel!”

    FRUMPEL: “Yeah, I was tired of her attacking my dearly-held white-supremacist beliefs, so I decided to make her seem to be unwoke on gay issues. And I would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren’t for you meddling kids!”

  28. Why would anyone bother to hack her

    1. I don’t think anyone has bothered to ask her that. But if they did, my money is on her blaming the Russians or the Jews or maybe both.

      1. It was the homos clearly. Those bastards simply can’t be trusted!

        1. Russian Jewish Homos. This are the worst

    2. Any port in a storm.

      Oooh, you said “hack”. Sorry.

      1. Is the storm named Daniels?

        Loose lips sink ships?

  29. Given the Democrat’s revisionism re: their 20th-century racism, this is totally unsurprising, if ironic coming from a black person.
    “I’ll have those n*****s voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” (Lyndon Baines Johnson about the Great Society)
    “Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.” ? US Senator (D-WV 1959-2010) Robert Byrd
    “I think one man is just as good as another so long as he’s not a n*****r or a Chinaman. Uncle Will says that the Lord made a White man from dust, a nigger from mud, then He threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman. He does hate Chinese and Japs. So do I. It is race prejudice, I guess. But I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, Yellow men in Asia and White men in Europe and America.”– Harry Truman
    And who can forget FDR’s snub of Jesse Owens after the 1936 Olympics?

    1. No surprise Byrd’s voters supported Trump overwhelmingly.

  30. I don’t think she can really be compared to “Democrat moderates”. Even most Republicans from that time didn’t bash gays, they simply thought they were mentally ill or choose to have gay sex because it’s more fun than regular sex or something. But the big issue (for both) was really just civil unions for gay couples and not marriages, basically a semantic issue because they associated marriage with religion.

    Ms. Reid seems to have had view from the Fred Phelps wing of the Democrat party

    1. Actually she had views consistent with the vast majority of African Americans. So this highlights how liberals hate white Christians and give black Christians and Muslims a free pass with respect to homophobia.

      So Obama’s real base was always young educated Millennials but even he lied about his opposition to SSM in order to get African American support who refused to vote for him in his run for a black House seat.

  31. So, she’s a pig-ignorant, snotty little bitch and has been for at least a decade. Does that disqualify her from reading the bullshit they put on the teleprompter to read at MSNBC?

    -jcr

  32. I know over there in Humpty-Dumptyland words mean whatever they say they mean, but if she gets excommunicated does her decree on the definition of classical liberal still stand? Can we now call her a racist Nazi Islamophobic climate denier for her views on the gays?

  33. Reid’s old posts actually make her look intelligent and thoughtful while her new views 100% in lock step with the Progressive Movement make her look like a dummy.

    Furthermore I will give Reid a break because she looks younger than her age and age is biggest factor with respect to LGBT rights. So as Gen Xer born in the 1970s I have always supported gay marriage but even being born a few years before me would make one less likely to have supported gay marriage until recently. Seriously, if everyone supported gay marriage then it wouldn’t have needed a movement to make it seem normal!?!

  34. I didn’t see anything homophobic about her comments. This sort of crap is something I’d expect to read on a liberal blog, not on a libertarian one. I thought it was only liberals who labeled people with a different opinion on relationships to be “anti-gay” and “homophobic.” They whip out slander if you even look at the pride flag without a huge smile on your face.

    Sorry, but having a different opinion on the topic of marriage — which is a religious topic to begin with — does not make a person ‘anti-gay’ or a ‘bigot’ or a ‘homophobe’…. or whatever other slanderous words your brain can dream up.

    1. “which is a religious topic to begin with”

      Defined broadly enough, most topics are religious in that the major religions have views on the subject.

      Eg, aid for the poor is a religious issue, war is a religious issue, etc. After all, don’t religious people have decided opinions on these subjects? And don’t they cite their religious traditions in justification of their views?

      So what makes marriage a religious issue to a greater extent, than, say, war or poverty?

    2. I agree with your comment and obviously I don’t care about this particular person because I am not a liberal but this does highlight the intolerance of the Left in that this first generation American black Christian woman must hide her religious beliefs in order to get ahead in that world. So she is in the most valued class to liberals but the beliefs she must hide pertain to her Christian identity.

      This also might explain why liberals believe they will be able to steamroll over the deeply held religious beliefs of Muslims if they give them entry to their “club”.

  35. Joy Reid, like many if not most Leftists, is delusional.

  36. Sooooo from what I read she basically said a bunch of totally normal, not even especially negative things… And everybody is freaking out. Sounds about par for the course for the modern left.

    I don’t mind fags fagging and stuff, but to deny that most straight people find the site of two men kissing being gross… That’s literally just not true. Almost all straight men have a knee jerk “ewwwww” reaction to that. It’s not right or wrong, it’s just factual. I’ve had gay friends since middle school and really don’t care about what anybody does in their bedroom, but the level of derp from the left is just crazy.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.