Now, never mind that the facts are completely wrong (it’s a K-4 school, there were men there). Consider the scare quotes on “reading specialist”. Consider the efficacy of bucket throwing against an AR-15 and two handguns. Consider the fact that Columbine, Aurora, and Goddamned Fort Hood certainly had more than a few men available.
The final point is equally idiotic:
Yes, when the choice is your mentally ill child or your cache of weapons the obvious choice is “Get out you fucking psycho”.
When anyone asks me why I am no longer a conservative, or why I feel that what passives for conservative thought these days (in National Review for fuck’s sake), I will link them this article.
False: there was at least one adult male on the school premises when the shooting occurred. Namely, the shooter.
Yep folks, when several women heroically sacrifice their lives attempting to protect children from a male mass murderer, what that means is that it’s bad to have lots of women around, y’know?
Hm… a good point. “National Review has been reduced to a pathetic shell of what it was under William F. Buckley (although even then it was a bit racist)” is pretty much just a stupid as:
Even considering that there were no twelve year olds at Sandy Hook, there was more than one male staff member, and that a shooter had, in the not too distant past, killed just as many people at a FUCKING ARMY BASE.
Yup, my commentary on the state of NRO is certainly much worse.
But using somebody else’s dumbshit illogical inane commentary about a tragedy to make a political point is not the same thing as using the tragedy itself to make a political point.
That makes no sense. We’re not required to give dumbshit illogical inane political commentators a pass on their inane dumbshittery just because they happen to be talking about a horrifically tragic event.
If the OP feels that this commentator’s idiocy reflects badly on her host site as well as her entire ideology and political affiliation and consequently wants to distance himself from them, I don’t see how that makes him a bad person or a douchebag.
Saying stupid dismissive things about heroic victims of horrible crimes makes you a douchebag. Saying contemptuous things about douchebags and the media and political institutions that enable their douchebaggery, on the other hand, does not.
Semi-automatic weapons depots in the home of a violent psychopath are the cause of this incident.
People who come up with bizarre and twisted and cruel theories to avoid this conclusion should really not be given a public forum in which to spew their cruelty. Do we really have to report the conclusions of nutjob armchair sociologists defending home armory caches as though they were thoughtful and respectable members of society and on the same page as the forensic psychiatrists? Aren’t there mercenary magazines and back pages of supermarket tabloids for this kind of crap?
What is the fucking point of a home weapons cache if you don’t use it to shoot everything you don’t like? Weird kid? Shoot him! What the hell else are the weapons there for??
No. What exactly did you think was “inane”, “illogical” or “dumbshit” about the OP’s critique of the linked dumbshit illogical inane article?
And in what way, according to you, was the OP attempting to make a political point out of a tragedy? Seems to me he was instead attempting to make a political point out of that commentator’s stupidity.
It seems that Mr. Monkey is using a similar strategy to those Christians who bleat “you can’t comment on my intolerance of others! Cause that make YOU the intolerant one!” Perhaps he’s afraid that recent events will cause us to take his gun away.
As best I can figure, the real goal is to cement the idea that doing something about the guns is such an impossible idea that we’re stuck discussing plainly ridiculous ideas like training our elementary students to becrack suicide squads as the best we can possibly do. The whole idea is to get in before opinion starts to congeal around the idea of any minimal additional regulations on guns, and divert the whole conversation to whether or no we should be arming teachers and even more idiotic ideas, because if we’re all having that conversation, they get to keep their precious fetish objects, and maybe more kids get shot, maybe less, that’s not really the point for them.
That’s the guy’s last sentence in the thing. I’m not sure what to make of his Freudian slip in substituting “passives” for “passes”. But, well, I don’t think he ever was conservative and I take a slight bit of umbridge.
I’m not sure what to make of your own slip in substituting “umbridge” for “umbrage” except it leads me to suspect that you’re a fellow Harry Potter fan.
Seriously, however, I still don’t think your analogy is apt. It sounds as though what you’re mad at the OP about is just a possible “guilt by association” fallacy: that is, you object to his suggesting that conservatives in general are saying stupid things just because this one conservative commentator is saying stupid things.
But that’s got nothing to do with the subject of the commentator’s stupid remarks. The fact that the original topic of the stupid commentator’s musings happens to be an appalling tragedy has nothing to do with the OP’s critique of the musings or his association of them with modern conservative thought as a whole.
