If you had any doubt that lefties are totally obsessed with their own infantile emotions to the exclusion of pretty much everything else that goes on in the world you should check out a recent article by the guy who created the first nauseatingly sanctimonious #Illridewithyou tweet on Twitter. It details his reaction to the recent furore over the lack of veracity of the story that so inspired him in the first place.
Michael James is a hand-wringing latte-slurper from Brisvegas. When he saw a saccharine Facebook post by former Greens candidate Rachael Jacobs about her offering to ride with a poor oppressed Muslim woman he tweeted the post without thinking.
Fitting so snugly into the smug anti-western narrative of slacktivist cuddlebunnies everywhere, it rapidly took on a life of its own on the social network.
But afterwards, because Jacobs was shown to be a tad loose with the truth when it came to what really happened on that train, a social and mainstream media storm erupted.
It seems that, not surprisingly, poor Rachael was a tad shat off about this development. Who wouldn't be? Though he claims she's showed him no ill will, mortified Michael has tried to make amends in this article about how the whole silly saga raises issues about -- wait for it -- Facebook privacy!
The guy's self-obsessed sanctimony is just stunning, isn't it?
A crazed gunman takes a bunch of Australian citizens hostage and demands an Islamic State flag to be shown in the window. While the poor bastards are still trapped inside, fearing for their lives, James sets off a social media campaign presenting Muslims as the real victims!
Then when the story on which the whole crazy frenzy is based is shown to be mostly false and people vent their spleen at being had, he still doesn't get it. He thinks the issue is actually caring sharing Rachael's Gaia-given right not to be snarked at for makin' stuff up! (And he doesn't even take responsibility for what he did. If he wanted to keep the issue about what he did to Jacobs, why doesn't he do an article about friendship, and how some "friends" callously exploit each other for personal and professional gain and cheap media cool points?)
Gawd. Any sensible person would note the jaw-dropping wrong-headedness of the campaign to start with, then when the truth emerged, the ethical questionability of Jacobs at least partially concocting a story to make herself seem virtuous (even if it was meant for a selective audience, and not the squillions who ultimately latched onto it).