Oh no, not refusing to denounce

I saw this:

So I laughed and then I found the conversation. It’s classic.

https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1091099281337901056

https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1091209066074955776

https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1091211016740909056

The presumption of it is so staggering and yet so typical. “I don’t want to argue, I just want to demand that you explain to me why you converse with someone I, a total stranger, consider a Thoughtcriminal.”

https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1091211691906322433

Look at that. Already he’s at “Are you at least willing to admit” – as if he were a fucking cop or prosecutor and Popehat were a suspect. Why the fuck should Popehat “admit” anything, especially to a sanctimonious goon like that?

So of course he dials it up even more.

https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1091213180691308544

Belligerence and intellectual dishonesty! (And it’s tack, not tact.) For simply saying no I’m not interested in having this conversation with you. And complaining that he refuses to denounce. These people are so creepy; I can just never get over it. Lives spent monitoring other people’s tweets for perfect orthodoxy, and accusing them of intellectual dishonesty for refusing to play the stupid game.

https://twitter.com/TVMathrusse/status/1091213533902196738

Torquemada has spoken. On your knees.

19 Responses to “Oh no, not refusing to denounce”