‘Oh, good GRIEF’! This WaPo opinion piece on ‘gunsplaining’ is ‘BEYOND embarrassing’

Posted at 5:54 pm on March 06, 2018 by Sarah D

You know, we were just saying to ourselves that what the gun control debate really needs is a defense of total ignorance on the subject matter. Thankfully, the Washington Post has given ex-Gawker employee Adam Weinstein a platform to do just that:

Oh, FFS.

This piece indeed deserves your derision.

Weinstein writes:

The phenomenon isn’t new, but in the weeks since the tragic shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., a lot of gun-skeptical liberals are getting a taste of it for the first time: While debating the merits of various gun control proposals, Second Amendment enthusiasts often diminish, or outright dismiss their views if they use imprecise firearms terminology. Perhaps someone tweets about “assault-style” weapons, only to be told that there’s no such thing. Maybe they’re reprimanded that an AR-15 is neither an assault rifle nor “high-powered.” Or they say something about “machine guns” when they really mean semiautomatic rifles. Or they get sucked into an hours-long Facebook exchange over the difference between the terms clip and magazine.

Has this happened to you? If so, you’ve been gunsplained: harangued with the pedantry of the more-credible-than-thou firearms owner, admonished that your inferior knowledge of guns and their nomenclature puts an asterisk next to your opinion on gun control.

If only these adversaries were a little more honest, I’ve often thought, and more precise in their language on the subject, we could have a serious debate on the finer points of a gun violence policy, instead of a bad-faith propaganda race.

Gunsplaining, though, is always done in bad faith. Like mansplaining, it’s less about adding to the discourse than smothering it — with self-appointed authority, and often the thinnest of connection to any real fact.

Yep. Weinstein’s problem isn’t people talking out of their asses on guns; it’s people who know what they’re talking about making the ass-talkers look bad.

Just pathetic.

No one remotely interested in serious debate should ever take a page from Weinstein’s book.

You’ll have to be content with just imagining. Because they’d never do it. Not in a million years.

Yep.

Almost like liberalism is driven by misinformation and ignorance. Fortunately, there are solutions to this problem:

True story.

Do better, WaPo. We know you can.




Loading ...