By now, you have almost undoubtedly heard about the 80+ people murdered in a shooting in Norway, and I would like to extend my heart-felt sympathies and prayers to the families and friends of those killed or wounded in this heinous act.
Unfortunately, rather than leave it at a comment like that, the various anti-rights cultists across the world started spooling up their spin engines before the first body had even completely cooled yet, and are currently falling all over themselves dancing in the blood of the murdered innocents, proclaiming how this incident is just “proof” that more countries need more “gun control” and that all “right-wing extremists” are just gun-happy murderers looking for an excuse to kill people.
You do not believe me? Well, we are going to take a brief departure from this category’s typical pattern – the below quote is completely and totally unedited, and I have provided a screencapture to prove it. These are Fabio Periera’s actual words, as quoted from his Twitter account:
This is a tragedy, both that 80 lives were lost & that right-wing gun nuts exist worldwide. http://ow.ly/1uTzSD #Oslo #GunControl
Again, those words are completely unedited. Now, ignore for a second the specious stereotyping, shameful fearmongering, fallacious appeal to probability, and rather predictable ad hominem attack; instead, consider Fabio’s use of the word “exist”.
He considers it “tragic” that people of a certain political belief “exist”.
Note that he did not write that it is “tragic” that a person of a specific political belief murdered all those people (in fact, his phrasing “lives were lost” specifically distances himself from the very notion of murder by use of the passive voice); note that he did not write that it is “tragic” that a person chose, of his own free will, to murder almost a hundred other people… No, to Fabio Periera, it is “tragic” that an entire demographic of the world “exists”, at all.
So, if those people existing cause Fabio extreme distress or sorrow, what would make him happy? Well, the thesaurus provides one single, solitary antonym to “exist”: die.
From his own words, we can conclude that it would bring Fabio great pleasure if all “right-wing gun nuts” were to die. Why? Just because they are “right-wing gun nuts”.
If that is not bald-faced, unabashed, audacious bigotry and rampant intolerance, I do not know what is.
Of course, the irony of the situation is that Fabio is a self-described “minority”. I shall not take a guess as to his ethnic composition, but I can guarantee you that there exist a non-zero number of people who consider it a “tragedy” that he “exists” as well solely because of the color of his skin, and I can likewise guarantee you that he would regard those people with the utmost contempt and disdain.
… Kind of like how I am regarding him now.
And while I would sincerely love to say that Fabio’s bigotry was something of an exception, the truth is that it is not – one need only look at the archives of this category to observe how anti-rights cultists regard anyone who cherishes and defends their individual rights. If their comments about firearm owners were made about any other social or political group, they would be immediately – and appropriately – castigated for their reprehensible behavior, but when they say these things about firearm owners, it is suddenly acceptable?
I think not.
[UPDATE] Reasoned Discourse strikes again! It would appear as though Fabio Periera took the coward’s route, and flushed the above tweet down a memory hole. Unfortunately for him, the internet never forgets. [/UPDATE]
CSGV was tapdancing yesterday on the blood of the victims.
They probably did not even give the blood a chance to congeal…
What do you expect from someone who chooses to put ‘Herr’ in front of their name?
Owing to my own chosen username, I am not sure I am in the best position to comment
.
I don’t understand why someone would troll the internet looking for a hash tag for a comment that someone makes on their personal facebook page – nor why someone would take a facebook page comment and turn it into a hate blog about that person. Lots of time on your hands to waste?
You do not know this person. Nor do you know their values or opinions. I read Fabios comments as more concerning the tragedy that happened. It is TRAGIC that 80+ people lost their lives. It is also TRAGIC that there are people living who want to take 80+ peoples lives. It is tragic that people don’t support other people and look for goodness.. and that far too many people just troll the internet looking for people to try and pin a label on.
He doesn’t consider it “tragic” that people of a certain political belief “exist”. He considers it “tragic” that NUTS exist.
& I do too. & I also believe in the right to own and carry guns. But I don’t believe in shooting random people for ANY REASON! EVER!!!
& as for the Herr… Here is the definition of the word — a German man: used before a name as a title equivalent to Mr
How do you know he is not German or of German descent?
Your understanding or lack thereof is really of no consequence to me, and I am not going to allow your narrow-minded view on the world to dictate my actions. I monitor the #guncontrol hastag on Twitter out of curiosity and a desire for blogging topics, and, what do you know, it worked out nicely this time.
Please point out where in this post I “hated” on anyone. Be specific. Because that claim was nonsensical when Fabio made it, and it continues to be nonsensical when you parrot it.
Who has more time to waste – the person who accurately called out the bigotry of a narrow-minded anti-rights jackass, or someone who whinged about it?
I simply do not care how you read his comment. I care what he wrote. And his words were clear – he considered it tragic that right-wing gun nuts exist. Logically, he would consider it the opposite-of-tragic if those individuals did not exist. Now, how are you being logically consistent when you attack me for “pin[ing] a label” on Fabio, but do not attack him for using those perjoratives?
Why would I “support” anyone who wants other people dead?
And, yes, he did write that it was tragic that people of a certain political bent exist – his words say exactly that. “Right-wing” and “gun nuts” are both terms that have been, are, and will continue to be applied to people who believe a certain way in regards to politics, and not just murderous whackjobs like the one in Norway. Now, if he had said “unhinged murderers”, you might be right. But he did not. And that is why everything I wrote in this post continues to hold true, regardless of your disjointed and irrational objections.
[...] Many people, through out the blogosphere, have commented on the Norway murders. Sometimes I agree, as with Roberta X and Kevin Baker and sometimes I disagree, as with Al Jezeera and Fabio Pereira. [...]
[...] People of your political philosophy should not exist. [...]
if it was of no consequence to you then why did you reply?
you are funny.
separating his words into two phrases “right wing” and “gun nut” makes it mean something else… he has no AND between those words. You added that. a “right wing gun nut” is what he wishes didn’t exist. I’m sure he would oppose a “left wing gun nut” too. or a green footed gun nut or even *gasp* dare i say it…. a pigeon toed, knock-kneed, half eskimo, half brazilian, democratic gun nut.
and for more of my disjointed and irrational objections.
you hated on him here
“and I can likewise guarantee you that he would regard those people with the utmost contempt and disdain.
… Kind of like how I am regarding him now. ”
and here
“Fabio’s bigotry” (i think calling someone you don’t know a bigot is hating on them)
and again (i yawn cuz i know you will not get this) but not once did I perceive his post as a hatred against right wing or gun tooting peeps. I read it as a dislike for the nuts who hide behind the cover of perfectly acceptable institutions, political parties and people. (and I come from a gun family – learned to shoot when I was 11, i believe 100% in the right to own guns)
again – if people could only look for positives in people instead of trying to make every little comment negative.
that is what is lame.
ps.. you also hated on him here “narrow-minded anti-rights jackass” in your response to me.
Love my narrow minded view of the world
and my heart breaks for all the families and friends who have suffered such a tragic loss because of a nut with a gun and a bomb. that is what we should all be focusing on.
@ Linoge:
A.Covington: Narrow minded bigots deserve scorn.
We will continue to heap scorn on them. And their apologists.
@ A. Covington: Yes. Just because your mental shortcomings are of no consequence to me, I should not respond to the rest of your comment. That makes sense!
Do you not comprehend that “right-wing” is an adjective that is used to describe “gun nut”? In other words, they are two distinct concepts, and Fabio chose to put them together in the fashion he did. Furthermore, are you attempting to convince me that you are unaware of the cold reality that “gun nut” has been used to describe any firearm-owning individual who opposes the kind of draconian, anti-rights, anti-Constitutional “gun control” that organizations like the Brady Campaign supports? That term is not exclusive to spree shooters.
But you know what term is exclusive to spree shooters? “Spree shooters”. Also, “murderer”, “criminal”, and “nutcase bastard”. Fabio consciously chose, of his own free will, to not use those words, and instead used a phrase that has been applied to millions of American citizens time and time again. If that is not what he meant to say (as you seem to believe, with no supporting evidence to back you), then why did he say it?
Moving on, I am curious… do you possess a dictionary? Do you know that dictionaries exist online? (Judging from your inability to find a “shift” key, I am going to guess the answer to both of those questions is “no”.) Allow me to help you out of your ignorance a little, because both of your comments so far have been absolutely overflowing with it – hate: “to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest”.
I feel no intensity nor any passion towards Fabio – I know, completely unemotionally, that his own words have exposed him as a bigot. I am not averse to him – after all, I engaged him (and he ran away, which says something about his position). And I am not hostile to him – I am exclusively hostile towards his attitude. Identifying him as a bearer of that attitude is an entirely separate concept – a concept which you do not appear capable of grasping. And, finally, I do not detest him – I detest his beliefs. In reality, I feel pity for him that he has to hide behind those beliefs, and I am astonished he thought he could express them without someone objecting.
Moving on, neither “contempt” nor “disdain” are semantically equivalent to “hate”, nor are they synonyms. In truth, both “contempt” and “disdain” have to do with respect and honor, neither of which I have for Fabio, and neither of which he has for anyone of a differing opinion.
Speaking more generally, however, you seem to be operating under the mistaken presupposition that “hate” is always a bad thing. It can be a bad thing, but I would hardly question anyone who hated another person when that other person wants them dead…
The term “bigot” is a word that identifies “a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.” In short, that describes Fabio’s comment to a proverbial T – he is intolerant, to the point of not wanting them to exist, of “right-wing gun nuts”. Observing his intolerance is not “hatred” any more than observing that he is a journalist – it is simply a statement of fact.
If Fabio did not mean his words the way they were written, why did he delete them? Why did he not clarify them? Why has he not responded to my post here, except to speciously label it as “hate”? If he was convinced of his position, whatever it may be, why has he not defended it? There is little worse than a person lacking the conviction to stand by their claims.
I am under no compunction to “look for positives” in a person who wants other people dead.
And that is the real crux of the matter, is it not? In the end, it does not matter who Fabio did not want to exist – the fact is, he wants people to die. Do you not comprehend that the only thing separating Fabio from the Norway shooter is action? They both have the same mentality… the only difference is that one has the spine to execute his wishes, whereas the other hides behind claiming to be a victim of “hate”.
And here you are, defending someone who wants other people to die, while simultaneously claiming to be a victim yourself. Your behavior frankly disgusts me, and you are fooling no one with your self-effacing pleas for “understanding”.
@ Kristopher: Careful, there. Our new resident idiot will continue to attempt to misappropriate words if you use complicated ones like “scorn”…