International Cat Speculators Since 2006

Patterico has a good post, where he tries to tease out of some one the reasons they had for threatening someone’s life online.

K.R. described herself as “a fan of the amazing atheist,” which is sad enough. Meanwhile, she said of Andrew: “i dont really know anything about andrew so i can’t say if im a fan or not.”

K.R. explained that she had sought to do what the Amazing Atheist had done. He “made a negative (and offensive) tweet to andrew to get a reaction out of his fan base.” That was her goal as well.

She explained that the Amazing Atheist had said some negative things about Breitbart. I asked her what those were and she said:

he siad that andrew was behind some lady named shirley getting fired, eposing the weiner pictures, and the shirley thing was he edited things from an interview or something to make her look bad

She added there was a third complaint but she could not remember what it was.

I explained: “Actually, he didn’t edit anything. He ran an edited video someone had sent him.” I then asked: “Would it be fair to say you’re not really familiar with the Shirley Sherrod controversy beyond what the Amazing Atheist claimed on his video?” She replied:

oh i have no idea about anything and im the first to admit it

Keep in mind, though, that she said Breitbart should die. I tried to explore what she knew about the specific complaints the Amazing Atheist had about Breitbart. We had already established that she knew nothing about the Sherrod controversy. What about the Weiner controversy?

all i know is that he [Weiner] took nude pics of himself and sent them to someone other than his wife…. and that it makes for wonderful puns

Now I’m starting to understand why Andrew Breitbart should die!

She claimed to be someone who liked to research things for herself. I asked: “What research did you do on the Sherrod controversy, the Weiner controversy, or the third controversy you mentioned before tweeting that Andrew should die?” (Turns out it the was O’Keefe ACORN controversy. Not surprisingly, the Amazing Comic Book Guy Atheist buys the Brad Friedman “heavily edited and deceptive” argument hook, line, and sinker.) Her answer:

i haven’t done any as of yet. ive been too busy with the multitude of tweets ive been recieving

Not quite responsive to my question — I actually asked what research she did before declaring Andrew Breitbart should die — but, OK.

Actually, I’ll save you the time of reading the whole thing.

  1. She had no idea who Breitbart was or what he had done outside of the rants of some one else who also had no idea who Breitbart was or what he had done.
  2. When Patterico tried stepping her through what she had done, she (seems to have) realised how wrong she was but didn’t really admit it.
From which I draw the following conclusions:
  1. If you’re going to put someone on your “sh*t list”, get both sides of the story first.
  2. Keep your words (reasonably) sweet, cos you’re gonna have to eat ’em
  3. When you eat ’em, eat ’em. When you’re wrong, admit it.
Usual disclaimer applies: the title in no way is intended to imply that there are no unthinking right-leaning trolls. There are.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: