I cannot help but notice that advocates for the BLM fiasco, Hillary Clinton and such are hiding behind the skirts of the protected forums.
If a person is unable to defend his or her opinion in GD, it is a strong indication that the opinion may be wrong. Hiding in a forum with like-minded people who pronounce every tippity-tap a person makes on their keyboard as originating from sparkle farting unicorns is a lousy substitute for discovering flaws in our thinking.
If BLM made a mistake over the weekend, if plants have corrupted the movement, or if HRC is a poor choice for President, then we need to figure that out through research and rhetoric.
Having someone trounce another person doesn't mean the trouncer is better than the trounced. It means the trounced has an opportunity to develop his or her opinion into something which can survive the crucible of rhetoric.
It is through that process that we have drawn the temporarily-incorrect-but-intelligent to support things such as gay marriage, better healthcare, evolution, climate change, free public education, unions and many other progressive issues.
It is only by pretending that the indefensible is still in the right that we become weak.
Cowering in a protected forum is poor way to support a cause. If the ideas or opinions have merit, then prove it. If attacks on ideas are erroneous, then provide a reasoned defense.
If the ideas or opinions are indefensible, then we all know what we have to do.
For the most part, it appears these loud-mouthed few are from two camps. One is the paid shill prostituting his or her account for money, posting multiple dozens of messages each day for years 24/7/365. The others are suffering from an Authoritarian Personality. Erich Fromm said "the essence of the authoritarian personality is an inability: the inability to rely on ones self, to be independent, to put it in other words: to endure freedom."
Members of the first group have no self respect, but may have the opportunity change into persons with ethics. Unfortunately, the second group, like others with an emotional or mental disability, are probably never going to be able to endure freedom, much less find joy in freedom.
There are, of course, those who have a genuine nuanced response of disliking Snowden and Greenwald while vigorously condemning this vile surveillance state. The key word, of course, being "genuine". Most of the people claiming a seat on that particular fence are, based on their overwhelming criticism of whistleblowers, lock-step support for an ideological leader, and vague muttering about civil liberties, are obviously from the second group.