A guest post from commenter Nate Winchester:
For those who don’t know, my title comes from a common internet joke whereby somebody posts a segment from a piece of media that ranges from offensive to outright bizarre with the accompanying punchline (golden and silver age comics are a VERY popular choice for this). Now as I said, the emphasis on this is as a joke with the humor coming from the reader’s mind trying to figure out what the context is. Sadly, we seem to live in an age where such has become the standard method for delivering news and informing others (exhibit A: The Daily Show). In these cases context seems to be for the weak-minded who might think thoughts that aren’t allowed.
Enter Mark Shea who, while rightly arguing for grasping context when it comes to religious and older writers, apparently finds it to be too much trouble to grant modern authors. Disclosure: I read Shea for awhile based upon recommendations by John C Wright and David Griffey, at least until Shea started going a bit loopy and ban-happy towards conservatives on his blog. Now I just check it now and then to see if he’s taken another step towards sanity or craziness.
In his post nro-writer-hang-women-who-have-had-abortions, from Sept 29th, Shea claims that “this is why people hate [conservatives]” while linking to… a leftist hit piece at the Addicting Info blog. (One wonders how he would react if someone wrote, “Dear Catholics, this is why people hate you” with a link to a piece by a ranting atheist; oh wait.) He then doubles down on it in the comments with several like:
Williamson is one of the best things to happen to Planned Parenthood in years.
Now let’s look at the original article and compare it with what was actually said.
“Recently, conservative writer Kevin D. Williamson penned a piece for the National Review which argued, among other things, that liberals and 20-somethings (who stubbornly tend to lean to the left) are “too dumb to vote.”
“The real action in deciding what happens to the fate of a nation occurs not at the ballot box, but with political involvement (or lack thereof) by the citizenry at much lower grassroots (and non-political) levels of culture and family life. That’s not to say voting is meaningless. Far from it. It is intensely meaningful. But *what* it means is not primarily about how my puny vote will affect the outcome of an election involving millions of other people. It is, rather, how my puny vote will change me.”
Wait, I’m sorry. That was Mark Shea: mark-shea/a-reader-asks-about-the-act-of-voting‘. Here’s what Kevin actually said:
Whoops, my bad, let-the-memes-begin,that was Mark Shea again. What was ACTUALLY quoted is:
“The article continues in a similar fashion from there on out, never straying far from the “Dunham loves abortions” narrative which Williamson had invented.”
-Do you think it’s morally acceptable to kill doctors who are about to perform abortions? Should women who have abortions get life without parole? If your answer to either question is no, you don’t think abortion is murder.
–I have hanging more in mind.
To which Willimson responded: Yes, correct.