You guys remember Nathan, right? We wrote about him a couple of times last week, the first time to illustrate how badly Ben Shapiro himself blistered Nathan for accusing him of influencing the gunman who killed six at a mosque in Canada. The second was to make fun of him for threatening to sue Twitchy for libel for using his own tweets …
He’s hilarious.
Well, seems Nathan is still hard at work trying to convince the world that Ben is somehow at fault for this shooting (sidenote, reading about Nathan’s other endeavors this editor is fairly certain all of this is just one big troll but eh):
Hey @neontaster @notwokieleaks @Halalcoholism, still think @benshapiro didn't influence the Quebec City shooter? https://t.co/jXSKcnWBvg
— Nathan Bernard (@nathanTbernard) April 24, 2018
If we rolled our eyes any further back into our heads we’d do permanent damage to ourselves.
So a terrorist being influenced by Islam makes Islam responsible for terrorism?
— neontaster (@neontaster) April 24, 2018
*popcorn*
No. In this case a sick individual indoctrinated with constant Islamophobic, fear mongering rhetoric from Ben Shapiro and others is responsible for the attack. Nice word salad though, Mr. Taster.
— Nathan Bernard (@nathanTbernard) April 24, 2018
What word salad? I'm applying your exact logic to a different scenario. Is the Dallas cop massacre the fault of Black Lives Matter? The perpetrator explicitly said that's what motivated him. Come on, Mr. Consistency. Have some balls to apply your convictions equally.
— neontaster (@neontaster) April 24, 2018
Psst … logic doesn’t seem to be Nathan’s strong point. Just our humble observation.
Sick individuals can be influenced to action by online propaganda. If you think BLM was specifically responsible for Dallas that’s your prerogative.
There is clear evidence the Quebec City shooter was influenced by Ben's online content and prosecutors seem to agree.
— Nathan Bernard (@nathanTbernard) April 24, 2018
Would this be the same prosecutor that one of Nathan’s followers tagged to sue Twitchy … a prosecutor who had never heard of either of these gentlemen?
"Let's drag people I don't like in front of Canadian courts to let them decide whether free speech is culpable for terrorism" is the galaxy brain take I never knew I needed.
— neontaster (@neontaster) April 24, 2018
If there is nothing to worry about then why not decide this in court? That case would certainly help set a precedent for how hateful online content influences violent offline action and the appropriate legal recourse.
— Nathan Bernard (@nathanTbernard) April 24, 2018
#Trolling
The findings from a Canadian case could be used to help establish standards in other countries, there’s no way it wouldn’t be useful regardless of the country and court’s decision. I’m sure Ben would agree. And again, he’s innocent right? So nothing to worry about.
— Nathan Bernard (@nathanTbernard) April 24, 2018
@NotWokieLeaks also engaged Nathan a bit:
https://twitter.com/notwokieleaks/status/988784312526032899
The key phrase being ‘people who aren’t morons.’
https://twitter.com/notwokieleaks/status/988784792476049409
This. ^
https://twitter.com/notwokieleaks/status/988785294571864064
Fair on both points.
https://twitter.com/notwokieleaks/status/988787780930166785
Ironic, ain’t it?
https://twitter.com/notwokieleaks/status/988790172211990528
Couldn’t have said it better ourselves, even if we tried.
Yes, Nathan will probably spend some time screeching at this editor again for attention, but we had to cover this … it’s just too funny.
And to think, Twitter is still free.
Related:
STUNNER: Oliver Willis accuses CNN of being in CAHOOTS with Trump in ‘a work,’ tombstones NYT
BRUTAL! Donna Brazile’s claim that Dems were ‘crime victims’ gets painfully CHECKED by Dan Bongino
Join the conversation as a VIP Member