This post is basically going to be a long Twitter conversation between myself and an asshole, along with interjections from me here. Please note that I cuss a lot here… also, this is not as long as it looks, because it’s basically a whole lot of tweets. So keep that in mind. You’ll move through it faster than you think…
Basic intro… I’ve got three posts now about WikiLeaks and their bullshit. Of course some people are angry at me for that…
@pwongview @NateHevens I think since Hillary clinton wanted to assassinate Assange it kind of a moot point.
— nathan (@NDButterfield) January 7, 2017
*record scratch*
What? Hold up… *runs off to Snopes*
Oh… oh I see where that comes from… oh okay…
Yeah… that never happened… https://t.co/3b3UChFlkw https://t.co/dxMIxfAljP
— #BlackLivesMatter (@NateHevens) January 7, 2017
You’d think that’s the end of that, right? I know Snopes isn’t the be all, end all, but for real. The claim that Clinton wanted to assassinate Assange is just blatantly false. So this person just admits that and moves on, right?
Come on.
Of course not.
Instead, they attach some wheels to the feet of that goal post and send it careening around the field…
@NateHevens yea that's what those hacked emails that are such a big deal revealed.. she did nothing corrupt or dirty…seems legit.
— nathan (@NDButterfield) January 7, 2017
*sigh*
I really should have seen that coming. But you know… I just had to have some hope that it would end there. But this fool went even further, to throw in some side shit that had fuck all to do with out conversation:
@NateHevens also black lives matter, but thug lives… they don't matter.
— nathan (@NDButterfield) January 7, 2017
Oh great! I’m conversing with a racist! WOOOOHOOOOO DREAM COME TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And you can fuck right off with that racist bullshit. https://t.co/2IAY7pG4fs
— #BlackLivesMatter (@NateHevens) January 7, 2017
Their response?
@NateHevens not racist. crooks don't mater, pedophiles dont mater, rapists dont mater, traitors dont mater, AND THUGS DONT MATER
— nathan (@NDButterfield) January 7, 2017
I just… I really should have blocked ND’s ass here, but for some reason I just kept it going. We got right back to this whole conversation about Clinton’s emails…
@NateHevens oh yea this might be too difficult for you to understand https://t.co/4PwgV8dhcB
— nathan (@NDButterfield) January 7, 2017
There is nothing there too difficult for me to understand. The other thing I understand is that we are talking about one specific thing: whether or not Clinton wanted to assassinate Julian Assange. That’s fucking it. In the context of this fucking conversation, I don’t give a flying fuck about anything else in those fucking emails.
So… (note: the rest of this convo comes with multiple points I should have blocked this asshole; that’s on me…)
Clinton never wanted to assassinate Julian Assange. That's the fucking point. Now fuck off. https://t.co/geGDjq1EbO
— #BlackLivesMatter (@NateHevens) January 7, 2017
@NateHevens guess you cant read between the lines, doesn't surprise me.
— nathan (@NDButterfield) January 8, 2017
WHAT IN THE FUCK IS THIS ASSHOLE EVEN TALKING ABOUT?!?
You said that Clinton wanted to assassinate Assange. I showed you that wasn't true. Discussion over. https://t.co/hypVbAWiph
— #BlackLivesMatter (@NateHevens) January 8, 2017
Am I wrong, here? This motherfucker right here absolutely insists that Clinton wanted to assassinate Assange. I sent him a link proving that she didn’t. It had nothing to do with the rest of her leaked emails.
But anyways…
@NateHevens no it is true, but that's o.k. I may be talking to a wall but its a wall that gets mad because it can't always be right.
— nathan (@NDButterfield) January 8, 2017
Wow. Like… how…
Motherfucker I gave you evidence. So it came from a source not sufficiently anti-Clinton for you so you’re just gonna stand there and be an asshole? Fuck you.
What. The. Fuck. Clinton never said she wanted to assassinate Assange. For fuck's sake that's it. It's over. Now stop. https://t.co/9jfS7t6biz
— #BlackLivesMatter (@NateHevens) January 8, 2017
Really should have blocked him there, but… (Jan. 14 edit: this is when I went to bed. Not sure why I completely ignored the time stamps. I’ve been sick for the last three weeks and, as a result, have been getting little sleep… explains why I’m only noticing this now…)
@NateHevens sure, and she did not collude with the DNC, receive debate questions before the debates, the CF is not a pay for play. Sure.
— nathan (@NDButterfield) January 8, 2017
WHAT IN THE HELL DOES ANY OF THAT HAVE TO FUCKING DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT CLINTON WANTED TO ASSASSINATE ASSANGE?!? FUCK!
You are pathetic, you know that? We were talking about ONE thing: Clinton wanting to assassinate Assange. https://t.co/ovx61mMzq9
— #BlackLivesMatter (@NateHevens) January 8, 2017
I haven't said SHIT about the rest of the emails. Clinton never wanted to assassinate Assange. Now quit moving the fucking goal posts. https://t.co/ovx61mMzq9
— #BlackLivesMatter (@NateHevens) January 8, 2017
@NateHevens if all the emails are fake? why would they affect the election? You don't hack lies, you make them up. Its over. Trump won.
— nathan (@NDButterfield) January 8, 2017
Did I say *all* of the emails are fake? Did Snopes say that? No. No we did not. https://t.co/0vDUOEavwr
— #BlackLivesMatter (@NateHevens) January 8, 2017
At this point, I finally try and get a little sleep. Wake up and… (nope… went to bed earlier)
@NateHevens i presented an email that suggested that, you rejected it. If you reject evidence that narrative is larger isn't it?
— nathan (@NDButterfield) January 8, 2017
Clinton. Never. Wanted. To. Assassinate. Assange. What does that have to do with the rest of the emails? https://t.co/nrk7zbttwI
— #BlackLivesMatter (@NateHevens) January 8, 2017
@NateHevens so you are saying she conspired with the DNC to cheat bernie, receive debate questions, mishandle classified docs, but no Assang
— nathan (@NDButterfield) January 8, 2017
The topic is whether or not she wanted to assassinate Assange. That is other shit ain't relevant to this specific topic. https://t.co/B7iLyIDf6k
— #BlackLivesMatter (@NateHevens) January 8, 2017
@NateHevens you are dodging it, and that is what makes it seem dishonest. When you have no credibility these allegations tend to stick.
— nathan (@NDButterfield) January 8, 2017
Sorry I haven’t interjected up to this point. I’m gearing up for a rant…
Did you put lube on the bottom of those goal posts? 'Cause they are moving faster than I've ever seen goal posts move. https://t.co/RC4a5MvLqP
— #BlackLivesMatter (@NateHevens) January 8, 2017
Do I need to show you the tweet you sent me that started all this? Did something happen to your short-term memory? https://t.co/RC4a5MvLqP
— #BlackLivesMatter (@NateHevens) January 8, 2017
@NateHevens No, email said they have software that rewords docs to make them more PC. Then they talk about how they want to 'hire' Assange.
— nathan (@NDButterfield) January 8, 2017
I feel like this person’s favorite hat is made out of aluminum foil…
Okay you know what? I sent you the Snopes link. Clinton doesn't want to assassinate Assange. Period. Now I got a life to live. Fuck off. https://t.co/es0zZlEOd3
— #BlackLivesMatter (@NateHevens) January 8, 2017
@NateHevens thats what it comes down to, I trust wikileaks, i dont trust
Clinton and American media for very good reason. Go live your life— nathan (@NDButterfield) January 8, 2017
You have no clue what Snope is, do you? Just leave me alone. I'm done with this stupid-as-fuck conversation. https://t.co/DVq3cwugZt
— #BlackLivesMatter (@NateHevens) January 8, 2017
@NateHevens i have been going there probably longer than you, and your frustration sounds like you know you may be wrong.
— nathan (@NDButterfield) January 8, 2017
@NateHevens if you can admit that the numerous allegations have merit, I can admit 1 specific allegation may be false. Otherwise…U Lie.
— nathan (@NDButterfield) January 8, 2017
On Twitter, I’m letting them have the last word because it’s block time. On here, though?
This is my fucking blog and so I’m getting the last word.
Motherfucker… we started with ONE fucking proposition: whether or not Clinton wanted to assassinate Assange. I literally do not give a fuck about anything else in those fucking emails. Frankly, I’m fucking sick of those motherfucking emails. I really want to head back in time and meet the people who were about to hack the DNC so I can unplug their internet and kick them all so hard between the legs they throw up their fucking balls. Those emails are so fucking annoying I’d rather hear Gangnam Style for a month straight then hear about those fucking emails one more goddamn time.
And don’t get me fucking started on your racist ass.
Not racist?
YOU FUCKING RESPONDED TO BLACK LIVES MATTER WITH “THUG LIVES DON’T MATTER“. FUCK OFF YOU RACIST PIECE OF SHIT.
I need all of these simpering douchebags to take a planet full of fucking seats and shut all the way the fuck up.
And NDButterfield? You can go fuck yourself sideways into the ocean with a cactus. Oh and if you come here to post in these comments, I’m going to delete them and block you here, too. Because I hate free speech. *insert eye-roll gif here*
I’m done.
(Note: I’ve decided to remove ads on this post given what it is…)
Dunc says
The email he’s citing is a forward of a satirical piece by Andy Borowitz. He’s either a complete idiot or straight-up trolling. Maybe both.
Marcus Ranum says
Throwing clean gloves in a mud puddle doesn’t make the puddle any glovier.
The “Clinton wanted to kill Assange” meme doesn’t hold water -- it looks like an early version of “fake news” to me. Obviously, it worked: confirmation bias is a powerful thing.
The anti-Clintonites who are trusting Wikileaks and think that it’s “on their side” are in for the same kind of shock as the anti-Bushites who discovered that Wikileaks wasn’t “for” Obama, or “for” Clinton. They’re not “for” anybody, or even “against” anybody -- you may as well roll 2D20 and look on your “what gets Wikileaks most attention” table, if you want to predict any given outcome.
Snopeser says
I didn’t know Anjuli had a twitter /snark