Debunking Denialism

Defending science against the forces of irrationality.

The Anechoic Chamber of Greta Christina

Note: racism is morally wrong and a young African-American man should absolutely without question be able to buy some candy without being, as the narrative holds, “hunted down and murdered by an angry white racist”. However, Greta Christina has misunderstood the legal situation and this post examines some of her errors. For a short summary of the main points, scroll down to “Conclusion”.

Note: for clarification, I do not support George Zimmerman in any way, shape or form (note added 19:13 GMT +1 20150926).

Greta Christina's reaction to the Zimmerman verdict

I have discussed the problems surrounding selective skepticism many times before on this blog. It can arise in the context of Nobel Prize winners having their rational thinking undermined by pseudoscience. It can occur when evolutionary biologists start making claims about the validity of an entire field for which their knowledge and understanding is, to put it charitably, limited. It has happened when the political beliefs of some skeptics contaminate their view of the skeptical movement. However, there are some ways for skeptics to attempt to limit impact of selective rationality and groupthink, even thought it often seems difficult.

When I use the term selective skepticism, I am referring to the following broad themes: (1) skeptics who are rational in many other areas (e. g. accept that evolution is a fact, accept that vaccines are generally safe and effective, reject HIV/AIDS denialism, accept global warming etc.), but remarkably fail to reach the same level of rationality in another field, (2) applying little or no skepticism to evidence that appears to support their personal belief and apply extreme skepticism to evidence that seem to run counter to those beliefs.

I continue to be fascinating by examining new case studies of selective skepticism that occur among well-known members of the skeptical community. In this post, I will be examining Greta Christina’s reactions to the outcome of the George Zimmerman trial. The two main reactions that this post will focus on is a tweet by Christina and a subsequent blog post were she elaborates on her position.

Important background information

Before we go into the details of this case study, let us go to great lengths to avoid misunderstandings. That way we can focus on the topic itself without needing to spend a lot of effort on unproductive and dead-end derailings of the conversation.

Racism: racism, like any kind of group discrimination, is morally wrong. Furthermore, racists and race realists often use pseudoscience to prop up their flawed beliefs. This has been demonstrated in many posts on this blog (here, here, here, here and here etc.) and there is even an entire blog category on Debunking Denialism dedicated to refuting racists and race realists.

Legal system biases exists and are well-documented: many scientific studies have exposed various biases in different legal systems around the world. Judges are more likely to grant probation if they review the case after lunch than before (Danziger, Levav and Avnaim-Pesso, 2011). When using visual courtroom technology, witnesses are considered more credible the more spatially and temporally closer they are to the evaluators and witnesses filmed using a medium shot are evaluated as more credible than those film using a close-up shot (Landström, 2010). If a person is convicted of murdering a European-American, that person is more likely to be given the death penalty than if the victim had been an African-American (Baldus et. al, 1998) and that study controlled for almost 40 possible non-race confounders. The more stereotypical an American-American defendant appears to be, the higher the risk of that person getting the death penalty (Eberhardt et al., 2006). Swedish researchers, using vignette scenarios, have shown that men are considered more provocative in the aggressor position and more responsible for their own victimization in the victim position (Lindholm and Yourstone Cederwall, 2011). This is attributed by the researchers to gender stereotypes of men as being powerful and aggressive and women being weak and unable to defend themselves. This was just a few examples, and others exist.

Presumption of innocence: the legal system in the U. S. require that the prosecution in a murder case prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant is guilty for a conviction. Thus, it is not enough to find rare inconsistencies in the defendant’s story or find some aspect of the case that cannot be explained (such anomaly hunting is typical of pseudoscience). It is not enough to show that reasonable doubt regarding the truth of the defendant’s story exists, they have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant’s story is false. It is also not enough to find some alleged morally objectionable personal characteristic of the defendant. Even people who have at some point behaved morally objectionably has the right to a fair trial.

Separating legality, morality and reality: these three concepts are very different and answer different questions (although they overlap). Reality is about what actually happened, morality is about whether or not it was wrong and legality is about what can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt in court. Questions about whether Zimmerman was morally justified in taking certain actions, such as getting out of his car, following after someone etc. (although interesting in their own right) are unrelated to the legal question of “could the prosecution put forward enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self-defense?”. Thus, there is no contradiction between holding that Zimmerman acted morally wrong in taking certain actions yet accepting that not enough evidence was presented to exclude the existence of reasonable doubt.

Examining Greta Christina’s reactions to the Zimmerman verdict

The rest of this post will be concerned with critically examining certain aspects of Greta Christina’s reaction: her ignorance about key facts of the case, her ignorance about the difference between legality and morality, her excessive usage of misleading and emotionally charged language, her rejection of the presumption of innocence, her belief that reasonable doubt does not matter, her unwillingness to consider reasoned criticism and her ideological insulation as well as the great irony of her comments about what freethought means.

Greta Christina uses misleading and emotionally charged language

Throughout her post, Christina uses value-laden phrases such as “hunted down” instead of “followed” and “killed for crime of being a black man” instead of “killed following a violent struggle”. Those are not outliers, because she specifically uses the term “hunt” three times in her post.

This suggests that Christina is not interested in a dispassionate and disinterested considerations of facts. Instead, she has bought into a cultural narrative without critical appraisal and is now trying to spread it to others. She is unable to maintain emotional distance to the case and her writings can therefore not be considered a credible.

Greta Christina rejects the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt

The reason that the presumption of innocence (you are considered “innocent until proven guilty”) exists is because a defendant should not require to prove his or her own innocence. This principle is so important that it has been made part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations. Article 11 states unequivocally that:

Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

The reason that “proof beyond reasonable doubt” exists when it comes to e. g. murder trials is that the evidence for conviction needs to be high because if it is lower, than the impact of falsely convincing an innocent person is considered to be unacceptable.

The legal question of the case was, roughly, could the prosecution present sufficient evidence to rule out reasonable doubt. Could they prove beyond any reasonable doubt that it was not self-defense? They appeared to not accomplish this, which meant that Zimmerman was acquitted from the charges.

Christina calls this verdict “a grotesque travesty of justice”.

This indicates that she thinks that people should be convicted despite the legal case not being proven beyond all reasonable doubt (or that she simply does not understand the legal situation). The fact that she has apparently bought into the cultural narrative regarding Zimmerman (i.e. that Zimmerman had a systematic hatred of African-Americans, that he hunted down and shot Martin who did not do anything besides buying candy) suggests that she also rejects the presumption of innocence. She has convicted Zimmerman beforehand.

Thus, Greta Christina appears to rejects two fundamental legal principles, one of which is considered important enough to be considered a fundamental human right by the U. N. This calls into question the intellectual honesty of her self-described “moral obligation” to make the world a better place.

Greta Christina only has a partial understanding freethought

Somehow, she must rationalize her decision to ban everyone who disagrees with her on the Zimmerman case. She accomplishes this by polarizing the issue and stating that the Zimmerman case is not an issue “worthy of calm, considered debate, issues on which people can reasonably disagree and still be friends” and insinuating that critics have “morally repugnant ideas”.

Christina is correct when she explains that:

I am sick to fucking death of the idea that “freethought” means “we have to treat all ideas as worthy of consideration, and debate them calmly and without anger, and treat people we disagree with respectfully.” Some ideas are morally repugnant. It is not antithetical to freethought to respond to morally repugnant ideas with rage. It is not antithetical to freethought to tell people with morally repugnant ideas that their ideas are morally repugnant, and that you will have nothing to do with them.

Yes, some ideas are morally repugnant. Yes, it is reasonable respond to morally repugnant ideas with rage. Yes, it is reasonable to block people who are morally repugnant. Yes, that does not contradict freethought. Yes, a young African-American man should be able to buy some candy without being hunted down and murdered by an angry white racist. That is self-evident for all reasonable people.

However, as will be shown below, this is not an accurate description of the legal case and the Zimmerman trial is an issue that is “worthy of calm, considered debate”. Using the “freethought does not mean we have to treat all ideas as worthy of consideration, and debate them calmly and without anger” approach is, while true in the general sense, highly problematic in this case. This is because Christina has completely misunderstood the legal issue.

The legal issue here is not “should a young African-American man should be able to buy some candy without being hunted down and murdered by an angry white racist?”, but “could the prosecuting prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it was not self-defense?”

Greta Christina is unwilling to consider reasonable criticism

In her post, she writes that if readers have “anything at all to say about this that even remotely hints at implying that what George Zimmerman did was remotely defensible, or that this verdict was anything short of grotesque”, she will ban them. She does ban at least two people who did the thankless job of trying to calmly reason with her. Those two comments were polite and presented arguments without any racism or gratuitous verbal abuse. Yet she banned them anyways.

Christina is fully within her right to ban whoever she wants. She is also has no moral obligation to interact with people she does not want to interact with. However, her actions demonstrate that she is unwilling to consider reasonable criticisms. This is also evident by the fact that she just links to blog posts that share her questionable interpretations of the case and acquittal, despite the fact that other bloggers on FreethoughtBlogs who share her overarching positions have gone to great lengths to explain the legal issues in the Zimmerman trial.

By cutting off people who attempt to politely reason with her, she is making her self insulated against criticism. In fact, the entire situation has several symptoms in common with groupthink: stereotypes of outgroups (calling any legal criticism of her beliefs “morally repugnant”), collective rationalization (e. g. the manufacturing of justifications to exclude opposing evidence and viewpoints), incomplete survey of alternatives / poor information search (she does not seem to have accessed enough information to understand the legal decision), selective information processing / the existence of mindguards (she only presents information and links that support her position), defective decision-making (her rejection of fundamental human rights).

In defense of Greta Christina: the existence of mitigating factors

It would be a mistake to automatically dismiss Greta Christina as a naive and irrational pawn. She is a prolific writer on issues such as LGBT rights and sex-positivity and many of her talks on these issues are very valuable.

I can imagine at least four different mitigating factors that could help to explain her behavior: (1) she attended the memorial of her father and scattered his ashes around the same time as the verdict came in (see the post linked in the intro to this post), (2) she has a history of clinical depression (see e. g. here), a mental condition which is known to be related to emotional dysregulation, (3) the cultural narrative of Zimmerman as a violent racist who hunted killed an African-American candy-buying child fits snuggly with her overall worldview as a devoted social justice advocate, (4) her poor information-gathering and incomplete survey of alternatives made it difficult for contrary facts to reach her.

The first two mitigating factors might have contributed to placing her in an emotional state that facilitating her reaction to the Zimmerman verdict. The latter two mitigating factors could have made it more difficult for arguments, evidence and considerations that run counter to her position to sink in and permeate her mind.

These mitigation factors may explain her reactions, but does not justify her errors of reasoning.


Racism is morally wrong and well-documented scientific evidence shows that the legal system is racially biased against African-Americans. The presumption of innocence and requirement to prove the prosecutor’s case “beyond any reasonable doubt” are fundamental legal principles and the former is even classified as a human right according to the United Nations.

A young African-American man should absolutely without question be able to buy some candy without being hunted down and murdered by an angry white racist. However, that was not the legal question under consideration. That legal question was, roughly, “could the prosecution provide sufficient evidence to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that it was not self-defense?”.

In her treatment of the Zimmerman verdict, Greta Christina used misleading and emotionally charged language, her line of reasoning indicates that she rejects the presumption of innocence and the requirement for proof beyond all reasonable doubt. That means that she actually believes that some people should be convicted in the absence of sufficient evidence. The alternative is that she did not have sufficient understanding of the legal situation (although these two options are not strictly mutually exclusive).

In an extreme case of selective skepticism, Christina is unwilling to consider reasonable objections and have insulated herself against criticism by banning anyone who politely and reasonably disagrees. However, some mitigating factors may exist, such as her clinical depression, the fact that she just had attended her fathers memorial, her prior beliefs about social justice issues and her poor information-gathering.


Baldus, D. C., Woodworth, G., Zuckerman, D. Weiner, N. A., Broffitt, B. (1998). Racial discrimination and the death penalty in the post-Furman era: an empirical and legal overview, with recent findings from Philadelphia. Cornell Law Review, 83: 1638-1770

Danziger, S., Levav, J., Avnaim-Pesso, L. (2011). Extraneous factors in judicial decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(17), 6889-6892.

Eberhardt, Jennifer L., Davies, Paul G., Purdie-Vaughns, Valerie J., & Johnson, Sheri Lynn. (2006). Looking Deathworthy: Perceived Stereotypicality of Black Defendants Predicts Capital-Sentencing Outcomes. Psychological Science, 17(5), 383-386.

Landström, Sara. (2011). Psycho-legal aspects of visual courtroom technology. In P. A. Granhag (Ed.), Forensic Psychology in Context: Nordic and International Approaches. Portland, U. S. A.: William Publishing.

Lindholm, Torun, & Cederwall, Jenny Yourstone. (2011). Ethnicity and gender biases in the courtroom. In P. A. Granhag (Ed.), Forensic Psychology in Context: Nordic and International Approaches. Portland, U. S. A. : William Publishing.

22 responses to “The Anechoic Chamber of Greta Christina

  1. David Jones (@metaburbia) July 21, 2013 at 00:00

    I don’t know Christina’s writing or stances on skeptical matters in general so I can’t say how her response here deviates form or aligns with her approach more generally; perhaps it’s a reminder that being skeptical and rational in some aspects doesn’t stop you from being irrational and unreasonable in others, and that goes for all of us of course. I do detest the assumption of moral superiority so typical of the FTBers/A+ crowd, though.

    • Emil Karlsson July 21, 2013 at 01:46

      She has written some excellent posts about atheism, refutations of religious assertions and so on (see under “Favorite Posts: Atheism” in the sidebar of her blog).

      Yes, I think it is a good example of selective rationality.

    • Mykeru (@Mykeru) July 22, 2013 at 20:09

      I think people make too much of the claim that someone is “skeptical and rational” in other circumstances. My experience, for what it is worth, is that irrational people are irrational across the board. They can, however, cite rote fact when needed. I’m sure, in this regard, the Creationist Henry Morris was a perfectly competent Engineer while remaining in all ways an irrational person. Greta Christina is more of the same: The illusion of rationality comes from our agreeing with some of her conclusions on some issues, and giving her a pass because we agree, even though the means by which she came to those conclusions is entirely irrational. People very rarely say “I reject you conclusion which I otherwise agree with because of the bone-headed means by which you arrived at it”. I would like to see more of that in the skeptical community and had people done more of that, we may not have had this infestation of conclusion-first, premises of convenience ideologues who were welcomed in with open arms.

  2. Autist July 21, 2013 at 00:48

    Excellent analysis!

  3. allison July 21, 2013 at 11:54

    An excellent commentary, thanks. I think Greta is unwilling to place herself in the shoes of other people, which prevents her from seeing why anyone might disagree with her. Sadly this banning of anybody who expresses even mild disagreement with her has become standard operating procedure for her in recent years.

    She (and her FTB cohorts) has denied being a fundamentalist of a different stripe, but I say if the shoe fits, wear it. As for me, I no longer visit their little echo chamber.

  4. Gumby July 21, 2013 at 12:56

    A good article, although I think you got a bit too speculative with regards to possible reasons for her selective application of reason, such as the death of her father.

    I am a former fan who became very disappointed with the core group of FtB bloggers for many of the same reasons you are disappointed with Greta Christina. Between their willingness to brush aside skepticism whenever it is convenient for them to do so, their (including their almost cult-like following of rabid commenters) vicious treatment of anyone who – no matter how reasonably and calmly – disagrees with the proclaimed status quo, and their religiously fervent belief that they are 100% absolutely in the right when it comes to their ideas on social justice, the very name “FreethoughtBlogs” has become a stunning example of Orwellian doublespeak.

    Myers, Benson, Thibeault, Zvan and Christina have completely dumped skepticism and reason in favor of emotionally charged social justice dogma, yet continue to associate their irrational tactics and behavior with the concepts of skepticism and reason because of the atheo-skeptic community they’re trying to influence. I don’t know what’s worse – the fact that these people do what they do, or the fact so many people in the community eagerly dump their own skepticism and reason in order to follow these ideologues.

    Looking at what is going on at FreethoughtBlogs, some lessons can be learned. First, it can be seen that it doesn’t take religion for people to act in dogmatic and cultish ways. Second, it’s clear that being an atheist does not make you any smarter or less susceptible to B.S. than theists. And third, the FtB debacle has shown that many self-described “skeptics” have very little idea what skepticism actually is – which you so effectively demonstrated with your above post. Skepticism is hard, because you can’t just be skeptical about easy targets like Bigfoot and homeopathy – you have to weigh the evidence and come to logical conclusions about everything, including things that are near and dear to your heart. The core group of FtB bloggers has completely lost that ability, and it’s distressing to me that they have as much influence as they do. The final lesson learned? The atheist and skeptic communities have a long way to go. We’re not as mature as we thought we were.

    • vjack July 21, 2013 at 13:43

      Great comment, Gumby. I’m not sure what else I can add except to say that I agree. I think you were spot on with what you said about what we can all learn from what has happened at FtB. We do indeed have a long way to go.

      Emil, the speculation about Greta’s state of mind also struck me as unnecessary and out of place. My advice would be to maintain a descriptive focus on her words and behavior rather than speculate about the inner workings of her mind.

    • Iamcuriousblue July 21, 2013 at 18:28

      I also think diagnosing the causes of Greta Christina’s irrationalism here is off-base. Partly because it crosses the line into “long-distance diagnosis”, the presumption one can accurately appraise someone’s psychohistory from public statements and actions. But also based on my interactions and reading of her over the last year or so, and seeing her act in an equally dogmatic and thoughtless fashion well before the death of her father and her cancer scare.

      I think GC simply succumbed to groupthink – she felt increasingly uneasy with the retrograde stances (real or perceived) of some in the skeptical milieu, began to increasingly restrict her circle to a highly dogmatic group of “social justice” activists, and eventually adopted a full “social justice warrior” mentality. That kind of slide into radicalization, extremism, and tribalism is all-too-common and happens to otherwise intelligent people without any notable psychopathology. A look back at the New Left in the US and Europe of the late ’60s/early ’70s and its degeneration into cults like the Weathermen and Baader-Meinhoff is a textbook example of this process in action.

    • Cat Burns (@AtheistFeline) July 22, 2013 at 16:57

      I agree with you about not diagnosing someone, however I don’t feel that is what EllenBeth did. She was showing empathy for what she is going though and using Greta’s own words to show compassion the loss of a father, EllenBeth is only pointing out that it can cause irrational behavior, it was the first thing Greta mentioned. Which is fair, and a lot more then Greta shows people.

      We do need to remember we don’t always know what is really going on with people in their personal lives and from what I have seen Greta doesn’t seem to ever consider anyone but herself when she goes on the attack. We should never compromise our integrity when dealing with a person/s that doesn’t seem to have any themselves.

    • Cat Burns (@AtheistFeline) July 22, 2013 at 17:02

      I apologize, please EllenBeth with Emil, I started reading on her page.

  5. Emil Karlsson July 21, 2013 at 14:21

    Regarding the comment on my discussions of mitigating factors:

    Fair enough, point taken and understood.

  6. makomk July 21, 2013 at 21:09

    There’s one minor problem with your argument: so far as I can tell proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not work in the way you’re claiming it does. All it requires is that, after considering all the evidence, the jury is sure the defendant is guilty and that they have some evidence to base that verdict on. The jury intentionally have broad latitude in weighing up contradictory evidence, including whether they believe the defendant; at least at the federal level, their verdict “cannot be overturned if any reasonable construction of the evidence would have allowed the jury to find the appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”. (State rules may be different but constitutionally they don’t have to be.)

    This role of the jury as trier of fact is fundamental to the US justice system and I’ve seen defenses of it every bit as eloquent and convincing as your blog post. If Zimmermann was convicted, someone with your rhetorical flourish could just as easily argue that this was the justice system working as intended, and probably even – with enough of a dose of hindsight bias – that the verdict was inevitable.

    It’s completely irrelevant that you can come up with a convinciing-sounding rational argument as to why there was no proof beyond a reasonable doubt. To quote the US Supreme Court: “That rational men disagree is not in itself equivalent to a failure of proof by the State, nor does it indicate infidelity to the reasonable-doubt standard. Jury verdicts finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt are regularly sustained even though the evidence was such that the jury would have been justified in having a reasonable doubt, even though the trial judge might not have reached the same conclusion as the jury, and even though appellate judges are closely divided on the issue whether there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction.”

    • Emil Karlsson July 21, 2013 at 22:27

      There’s one minor problem with your argument: so far as I can tell proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not work in the way you’re claiming it does. All it requires is that, after considering all the evidence, the jury is sure the defendant is guilty and that they have some evidence to base that verdict on.

      No, that would be more like the standard “clear and convincing proof” (i.e. based on the evidence, there is a high probability that X is guilty as charged), not the standard “proof beyond reasonable doubt is”. The latter is, according to West’s Encyclopedia of American Law:

      The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused’s guilt, but only that no Reasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence presented.

      Thus, “proof beyond all reasonable doubt” is not the same as “being sure and having some evidence”. It is the point were there can be no reasonable doubt about the defendant’s guilt. If there is some plausible and reasonable scenario that is consistent with all the evidence, then the defendant should not be found guilty.

      Thus, the alleged “minor problem” you put forward, collapse under rational scrutiny.

      It’s completely irrelevant that you can come up with a convinciing-sounding rational argument as to why there was no proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

      You do not understand. It is not that I personally have constructed some plausible-sounding post hoc scenario in which there was no proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Rather, the prosecution, as a matter of fact, could not provide enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self-defense.

  7. Didgya (@Didgya) July 22, 2013 at 01:58

    Great concise post. There are many factors in the case and I wish the prosecution would have went for the appropriate charge. I appreciate the defense of Greta (though she annoys me) section. The speculation of her state of mind and feelings are humanizing her for the reader and not a negative.

    • Emil Karlsson July 22, 2013 at 11:13


      The reason I attempted such a section was because I wanted to make the treatment fair, charitable and level-headed. However, it had the unfortunate side-effect of being too speculative and “off-base” (as one commenter mentioned).

  8. Emil Karlsson July 22, 2013 at 12:38

    I noticed that there was a thread about this blog post up on /r/AgainstAtheismPlus where a user by the name of “makomk” made the following remark that I would like to take a moment to respond to:

    Also, wow, the irony is delicious. He titles one section “Greta Christina uses misleading and emotionally charged language”, then the next section “Greta Christina rejects the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt” which is both misleading and emotionally charged.

    Of course, my intention was not to make the claim that Christina explicitly rejects those two principles or give the impression of using misleading or emotionally charged language. If asked, I am sure that she will say truthfully that she does accept them.

    Rather, my point was to argue that her beliefs about both the situation and how she has handled it were incompatible with the presumption of innocence (she seems to have judged Zimmerman beforehand) and reasonable doubt (she wanted Zimmerman to be convicted, yet reasonable doubt existed).

  9. Jason M. Wester July 22, 2013 at 15:57

    Nicely done. Christina seems to be going off the rails with some regularity lately. I’m sure all of us have been guilty at one time or another of writing from an emotionally charged point-of-view; I can’t fault her for that, necessarily. The Zimmerman verdict was disappointing and even outrageous. I remember not long ago that girl in Florida who was accused of killing her daughter (sorry if I can’t remember names here) and she was acquitted. Man, people went nuts about that one. Nuts. I remember I was attacked for suggesting that the jury had more information than anyone else, and a reasonable person must acknowledge that. I just don’t know if the verdict was just or unjust because I was not privy to all the information. Same goes here with Zimmerman. Only the jury had all of the information. All I can do is guess. Christina should be embarrassed for falling into that trap, that she, somehow, knows more about this case than the jury did.

    Secondly, can she not turn off her comments? Why write a post, tell everyone who reads it that only agreeing comments will be tolerated? Why not just turn off the comments if she doens’t give a damn about the views of others? Makes zero sense to me, but does highlight with unusual clarity that FtB is, in fact, an echo chamber for synchophants.

    • Emil Karlsson July 22, 2013 at 16:03

      Secondly, can she not turn off her comments? Why write a post, tell everyone who reads it that only agreeing comments will be tolerated? Why not just turn off the comments if she doens’t give a damn about the views of others?

      That is a very interesting question.

    • Cat Burns (@AtheistFeline) July 22, 2013 at 16:59

      Only reason I can think of is she needs to have her opinions validated by others.

  10. GrzeTor August 5, 2013 at 23:12

    These left wingers want violence.Then desire government to be violent against an individual called Zimmerman. They even try incite for govnermnent violence against Zimmerman by using emotional manipulation. They would be pleased and satisfied if violence was unleashed upon Zimmerman by the goverment. They desire violence.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 548 other followers

%d bloggers like this: