facts which do not fit the narrative are discarded

I love internally inconsistent people, no matter what their political or sociological leanings might or might not be; obviously, I would prefer them to be as far away from "my side" (whatever that means any more) as possible, but, regardless, without them I would not have nearly as much good material on this site as I do now.

Take, for example, Penny Bernath, writing on Twitter under the rather appropriate screenname of @penny_bernath, and claiming to be a "red state liberal". A week ago, she penned the following tweet:

imageRandi Rhodes show: #NRA #GunViolence #RWNJ‘s on yesterday’s murders in Arizona. randirhodes.com/main.html

… and I could not help but to respond:

image.@penny_bernath Apparently Randi is an idiot – the shooter in Arizona ran as a Democrat. Nothing #RWNJ about him. #NRA

For those not in the know, "RWNJ" is an abbreviation for "Right-Wing Nut Job"; however, the problem is that the Arizona shooter is about as far from "right-wing" as you can possibly get – he was a proud supporter of and activist for the "Occupy" failure, he previously ran for sheriff as a Democrat, and he had previous ties to neo-Nazism (a blatantly left-wing, socialistic organization). But, hey, Penny is not one to let the facts get in her way:

image@linoge_wotc eh.. change the wording to Nut Job then. Headline should still read angry man with gun exercises his 2nd amendment rights. #NRA

Sure… the headline could read that… if you wanted to lie:

imageThis is false. #2a doesn’t protect a non-existent "right" to murder. RT @penny_bernath exercises his 2nd amendment rights. #NRA

Unfortunately, Penny’s response should have indicated to me that any further attempts at conversation were useless:

image@linoge_wotc exactly.

I disagree with her, and she thinks my disagreement proves her point? Uhm…

Predictably, her derangement went steadily downhill:

image@linoge_wotc Tragic gun induced violence. Innocent people got in the way of his constitutional right. Where was their right to life/liberty.

The answer, of course, is somewhat simple:


Being infringed upon by a loony leftist murderer. RT @penny_bernath Where was their right to life/liberty.

Just because someone is infringing on your right does not mean you no longer possess that right, and this applies to both people infringing on your rights and governments. The shooter in Arizona unlawfully, unjustly, and amorally chose to ignore other people’s rights to life, and he was unquestionably, without-a-doubt wrong in that decision. But he had no "constitutional right" to infringe on their rights, his decision had absolutely nothing to do with the tool he chose to use, and his actions did not destroy those other people’s rights… only their lives, unfortunately.

At this point, the reason for this post became apparent:

image@linoge_wotc again.. Shooter’s politics hardly matter in the reality of lax gun laws. Common sense matters. Life matters. Fk the #NRA

Such eloquence… Such turning of a phrase… Such a witty mind. *headdesk*

Anywise… Oh. I see. So the "shooter’s politics hardly matter" once you learn that the shooter is actually more aligned with your side of the fence than what you believe to be my side, so it is time to start… backpeddling:

Image(3)@penny_bernath So the shooter’s politics mattered when he was a rightie, but not a leftie? How… transparent of you.

And how predictable. Damned near every single time some deranged nutjob takes it into his mind to go shoot up a joint, the leftists / "liberals" / "progressives" / etc. come flying out of the woodwork decrying the "right wing" "hate machine" for fueling / creating / encouraging this avatar of their alleged animosity, and holding him up as an example of how all "right wing" types are potentially evil / murderers / etc. But when that narrative gets flipped on its happy little head – even on the very person they were decrying as being "right wing", as in this case – those self-same lefties are suddenly of the opinion that the political leanings of the murderer in question "hardly matter".

I am not sure which is worse – their non-stop flailing about with fallacious stereotypes, or their rank hypocrisy.

One thing is for certain, though: they do not like being called on either:

image@linoge_wotc Well you know us liberals… we believe in transparency. Are you done being rude yet? Or do I need to block you? Your choice.

Oh. Right. Sorry, I forgot – calling lefties on their blatant abuse of logic and reason is "rude". How inconsiderate of me. Or something:


.@penny_bernath So, wait, you fallaciously stereotype & don’t apologize for it, & I’m the one being "rude" by pointing that out? *giggle*

Unsurprisingly, Penny did end up blocking me, after I explained to her that I would be weblogging all of this. I guess I cannot blame her – I would not want my rank hypocrisy and bigotry exposed to the world either, which is why I do my best to keep away from such shortcomings of character.

If you will allow me to be perfectly honest for a moment (which you will, since this is my weblog), I do not give a damn what a criminal’s particular political leanings are – one person’s actions cannot be used to determine the potential actions of millions of other people. Period. I do not care if a mass murderer has the exact same social, political, and economic leanings as me, or Penny; the criminal’s actions and decisions have absolutely no bearing or predictive capabilities on what she or I will decide to do with our lives.

But, then, I tend to believe in these little things called "free will" and "individual responsibility". On the other hand, Penny, with her obvious attempt at shifting her own personal responsibility for blocking me onto me when the truth is it was her decision to make, obviously does not… which may be where the disconnect lies.

8 thoughts on “facts which do not fit the narrative are discarded”

  1. Well done, though I was surprised to see her accept his political alignment so easily. I expected several tweets about how “racist = right wing” first.

  2. @ Oakenheart: As a GT grad, I tend to agree ;).

    @ Weer’d Beard: The best thing about riding someone else’s descent into insanity? You can hop off any time you like :).

    @ TS: That caught me rather off guard as well, but, hey, do not interrupt your opponents when they are making mistakes :).

  3. I have to say that this is exactly why I don’t use Twitter any more. Why say in one post what you could say if 17 tweets spread out over 3 days?

    Of course, I’m not sure I have *any* posts under 140 characters, so maybe there’s that …


  4. Great material for the blog. Thanks for sharing.

    Don’t be surprised if you are called out as a “bully” by our dear leader. Little Penny was given little opportunity to properly defend her position as you pummeled away at her like a right wing violence monger would do!

  5. Maybe I should get a Twitter account to start messing with these anti-rights cultists, this looks like a lot of fun!

  6. @ Borepatch: Aside from the obvious source of blogfodder, Twitter provides me a somewhat unique challenge… I, too, tend to be somewhat long-winded, to the point of being almost Randian in my attempts to drive a point home. Twitter does not allow me to do that, which requires me to consolidate and condense my argument as much as possible. In the end, I hope that might improve my overall writing, since it would allow me to get to the nugget of what I want to say without all the fluff.

    Or not. Either way, it entertains me.

    @ Karl: Eh, she already called me “rude” because I pointed out her hypocrisy, I would not expect a great deal more out of her.

    Although, speaking of, it is interesting to note that none of the Twitter denizens I have called out here have seen fit to respond here, despite my bringing their respective posts to their attention. Guess they are too afraid of arguing their points in an open forum where they cannot control the message, or rely on bumper-sticker “logic”.

    @ AntiCitizenOne: It surely does pass the time at times ;).

Comments are closed.