More Twi**er hilarity

September 6, 2015 • 1:30 pm

UPDATE: As a reader below points out, Hemant Mehta, the Friendly Atheist, has sussed out that this is a fake account. So, sadly, I issue this correction, realizing that the hilarity was not unintentional.

________________

Speaking of odious folks on Twi**er, apparently jailed Kentucky clerk Kim Davis, who is still sitting in jail for refusing an order to issue marriage licenses to gays, is tw**ting, but via her husband Joe, who’s using her account. Go have a look at some of the LOLz on her Twi**er feed. Here are a few examples:

Screen shot 2015-09-06 at 6.31.36 AM

Screen shot 2015-09-06 at 6.32.26 AM

Screen shot 2015-09-06 at 6.30.25 AM

This one is great: we sure can’t let those Muslims, gays, and baby killers walk the streets!Screen shot 2015-09-06 at 6.32.48 AM

h/t: Saladin Ahmed via Matthew Cobb.

Addendum by Grania

Salman Rushdie’s response to people trying to claim that this is all about religious freedom.

tweet

37 thoughts on “More Twi**er hilarity

    1. Sometimes it’s hard to see the difference between trolling and genuine stupidity. That’s the sign of a truly skilled troll.

    2. That’s my main argument against the recurrent calls for real names on the net. Without a secure way to confirm them, “real names” are nothing more than real sounding pseudonyms.

  1. If someone can do a fake version of her twitter that doesn’t say much for twitter, does it. Of course the fact that Trump is on it all the time says even less.

    1. I don’t recall there ever having been any identity checks for signing up for a twitter account, so I’ve never had any reason to believe that any account on Twitter is who they purport to be. A few – personal friends or acquaintances – I can vouch for, but beyond that I’ve never had reason at all to believe that any account is “true”. And no-one has any reason to accept my account as being “genuine” either, so what value is my vouching for someone?
      The only useful thing I’ve got out of this is that, apparently, there should be some sort of “check mark” against a celebrity’s name, if the account has been verified by Twitter Inc as being “genuine”. But since I don’t follow any celebs … OIC : Prof Jim Al-Khalili isn’t a big enough (or controversial enough) celeb to deserve being “verified” (74k followers), but Dawkins (1.24M followers) is. OK, now I see how it works.
      And Matthew Cobb with 3260 followers isn’t likely to need verification any time soon. Unless the book sales spike. Tell us again about your new book, Matthew.

    1. Yes Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King were not trying to deny someone else’s rights but just to assert their own. Davis was illegally seeking to prevent gay couples from fulfilling their right to marry. If her religion doesn’t approve of gay marriage she is perfectly entitled to resign from her job but she is not entitled to act as a self appointed filter on who can and cannot get married.

  2. Wonders never cease on ‘The Tweeter’, as my son calls it.
    I cannot get my brain to even pretend that the basic civil rights called for by MLK are somehow equal to the ‘right to prevent people from getting married’.

    1. 1 man & 1 woman “at a time” i think they mean. And pretty much all the marriages in the bible the men had multiple wives so i dunno where they’re getting that from.

    2. “God’s Marriage”? He never married, though he did have a child out of wedlock with Mary – also his mother!

  3. Kim’s “Liberty” shysters are from the same people that protected White superiority and blocked Supreme Court decisions on integration.
    The odious Jerry Falwell of Liberty University:
    “If Chief Justice Warren and his associates had known God’s word and had desired to do the Lord’s will, I am quite confident that the 1954 decision would never had been made. The facilities should be separate. When God has drawn a line of distinction, we should not attempt to cross that line.”
    Christopher Hitchens said,
    “If you gave [Jerry] Falwell an enema he could be buried in a matchbox.”
    This religious freedom argument has a 60 year history of being used to put lipstick on a pig.

  4. It makes it look like Kim Davis married to a woman named Kim Davis. So maybe she’s only against male same-sex marriages.

  5. I don’t see any True Believers volunteering to take her place or volunteering to sit along side her. Can anybody explain why not?

  6. I hear tell Hubby Joe is enjoying being on his lonesome, wants to keep the wife in stir as long as possible. He calls the Judge’s chambers every day, claiming to have a message from her:

    “That all you got, Bunning?! I can do the time standing on my head!”

    1. I checked out your site a few weeks ago when you reblogged something else from here there.

      Is it just me, dude, or do you have a subtle gay subtext thing going on over there? 🙂

      Anyway, enjoyed it.

      1. Subtle? Hardly! There are plenty of secularists in our community. The tweets shown in this post are a good example of why we’ve left religion, well that and in my case being a science nerd.

  7. What a twisted mind! She is not a Civil Rights activists, but a modern ignorant , bigot and too dumb to know it. Husband seems so too.

  8. I think the US populace breathed a collective sigh of relief when the Supreme Court cleared the way for marriage equality throughout the nation. I predict that rear-guard actions such as those taken by Davis will have no lasting effect since the country, as a whole, has decided to get past that one, and I find that a very hopeful sign.

    In fact, given her defiance of US rule of law and the honey-pot it has served as bait for opportunistic politicians (I’m thinking Cruz, Huckabee), she may have done more to discredit the religiousos than anyone in recent memory.

  9. Let’s hope her supporters don’t start vandalising Test match pitches. Fortunately the Ashes is already finished.

    (A 40 year old reference that will only be understood by Brits and maybe Aussies).

Leave a Reply