This Is How Their Game Works

In response to revelations that they shamelessly edited both Judy Ancel and Don Giljim's posts to make it appear that they were saying things they did not say, Breitbart hacks are demanding that people respond to their latest nonsense. Their claim is that because Ancel misquoted a guy in the film, that somehow justifies them taking a claim that she was attributing to others for the sake of class discussion and pretending she was endorsing it herself. The argument is stupid beyond words. But that's not the point. The point is that they doing what they always do, using completely nonsensically idiotic distortions of language and logic to try to take up the time of anyone who argues with them. No matter how idiotically stupid their claims are, they will demand, "why don't you respond to this! This proves we're right!" Not because they actually believe it, but because they think it makes them look better.

So, sadly succumbing to their latest mind-numbingly stupid claims, here are a few obvious points:

If they really believed the full quote was an endorsement of violence, then they could have included it in the original video. However, they waited four days and waited until they were called out before manufacturing their ridiculous excuse.

Attributing a quote to another person is not the same thing as endorsing that quote. If I say, Dana Loesch says "Breitbart walks on water," I am obviously not saying that I believe Breitbart walks on water. And let's say Dana Loesch actually said, "Breitbart walks on orange juice," but I accidentally misquoted her. It's still quite obvious that I'm not claiming I believe Breitbart walks on water. This is clear to any person who learned the meaning of the term "says" back in Kindergarten

They still have provided no explanation whatsoever for why they took words out of the middle of Don Giljim's quote in order to distort the meaning to the exact opposite of what he said. Or why they ignored Giljim saying elsewhere that he rejects the tactics.

But honestly, my saying this won't change anything, because all they'll do is try to find some other absurd abuse of the English language to claim that maliciously editing video isn't really the same thing as being dishonest.