heh. I don’t know, or care about his last name. But he does seem to be playing “loony liberal elite” bingo with his Twitter account.

Doesn’t matter because he didn’t come even close to communicating that successfully in his tweet. Whatever he might have meant, all he succeeding in doing was expressing a desire for a genocide of white people. But please, keep going with the chemtrail false equivalence, it was working so well.

No. If you criticize the actions of one side, you must be endorsing the other. Because polarization, false dichotomies, and a whole lot of stupid people on both sides.

I think it’s hilarious that the right acts like the left has a monopoly on physical cowards or something. Aside from a small handful of gun-nut-terrorist-wannabees, most of the right talks tough, threatens people online, and cries when don’t they get legal coverage to treat people badly, because Jebus.

You mean that successfully handling a topic like genocide might require a bit more nuance (and context) than a snappy one-liner?

Yep. Even if he had some great point in mind, and wasn’t just being a troll, his presentation fell completely flat.

And if he wants to write his own Modest Proposal, it might be effective satire. Nothing about the tweet got that across. It just said that he wanted a genocide.

Psst. Doesn’t matter.

I thought his whining over the “tepid free speech defense” was pretty sad. I don’t think that his constitutional rights have suffered any harm. He tossed a grenade, and now he’s upset by the response. With or without his own “tepid satire defense”, he was pretty blatantly trolling by saying something inflammatory…

Apparently we’re supposed to be outraged that people are outraged that a guy said something that, outside of some fairly specific context, is fairly outrage-inducing?

Dude makes pro-genocide statement on twitter. Dude is surprised that this provoked a negative response? I think we typically want a negative response to statements like that. And whatever stupid shit Breitbart probably said, the Twitter responses were not a “horde of racist trolls”. In a couple minutes of…

Probably a bigger dick in round two. Just a bit more subtle about it. Instead of “worship me, or get genocided and/or enslaved!” it’s more like “worship me, or suffer for all eternity after you die!”.

It’s a great escape hatch for actually needing to explain anything about the nature of a being that people claim to know a whole lot about the nature of.

I could point out that this is a manifestation of the “magical black lady” trope. But I’m pretty sure that’s not what the Christian nutters are upset about.

Oh yeah, no issues there. In spite of what I’ve heard from a whole ton of religious nutters, I’d totally change my mind and convert to their religion if they actually gave me some evidence that it was true. Like an afterlife.

I wouldn’t mind people converting posthumously....if they were actually doing the converting. Baptizing dead people is seriously tacky, whether the dead person actually exists or not.

Karma is a concept in Hinduism which explains causality through a system where beneficial effects are derived from past beneficial actions and harmful effects from past harmful actions

This sort of shit is why I find it extra funny when Christians try to insert their religion into government. They’re not a monolithic bunch, and a whole lot of the factions in Christianity fucking hate each other. Even if one of them managed to impose their religion to the degree that they want to, it would…

Oh, I’m not saying that anyone necessarily endorses it. I don’t think that they have to for it to be a problem though. It’s a belief that there are no good reasons to think is actually true, that has some serious, negative real-world consequences for people in cultures where it is prevalent.

Not going to argue with that. He’s a dick either way. It’s just that the Old Testament involves very large (but finite) harms, while the New threatens infinite suffering.