While reading Andrew Sullivan’s blog on The Daily Beast, I ran across this post from Andrew. *The **Wall Street Journal’s *James Taranto’s latest tweet is quoted, which talks about the Aurora girls whose boyfriends saved them when the latter used their bodies in a self-sacrificial effort to absorb the theatre shooter’s bullets. Taranto says, “I hope these girls whose boyfriends died to save them were worthy of their sacrifice.” Of course, this insensitive tweet produced a backlash, documented here on HuffPo. Taranto, facing pressure from his tweet’s critics, decided to clarify what his tweet really meant with:
What the hell does he mean by “good, full, happy”? Specifically, what does he mean by good? Is this just supposed to be a colloquial way of wishing the survivors well, as in saying “Have a good life”? Or, is this supposed to be a moral mandate, like, “Be good”? Who fucking knows. Either way, the clarification of his tweet has problems. If he is claiming that his tweet solely intended to express hope that the survivors live long and prosper, then there is no way, even for James Taranto, to plausibly infer such sentiments from what he tweeted. Whereas, if he intended to morally lecture the survivors by telling them to be good, then one needs to ask this particular conservative why it’s too early to talk about gun control but not too early to lecture the grieving.