Dan Slott: ‘Politicize the f–k’ out of tragedy, ignore 5th Amendment to strip innocents of rights

Dan Slott

Marvel writer Dan Slott recently let it be known that he really doesn’t like it when Christians pray after Islamic terror attacks, but this week he made it clear that exploiting raw emotions after a tragedy is good and virtuous — “politicize the f–k” out of such moments were his exact words. He also wants innocent Muslims, Jews, Christians, atheists — all Americans, in fact — to know that it is “crazy” to uphold the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Due process? Who needs that? Police states are so much more efficient.

Dan Slott no fly list tweet

Men like Dan Slott are political vultures. They swarm around in circles and wait for people to die before tearing at the carcasses. There are millions of Americans who will look at the gruesome spectacle and agree to anything to get it to stop, but luckily there are others who use logic and reason to ensure the blessings of liberty for future generations.

South Carolina Rep. Try Gowdy, for instance, demonstrated after the San Bernardino, California, terrorist attack just how dangerous it would be to deny an innocents their constitutionally protected rights because the government suspects them of a committing a crime.

Mr. Gowdy had the following exchange in December with Kelli Burriesci, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Screening Coordination, Office of Policy of the United States Department of Homeland Security:

Trey Gowdy: Let me ask you a question about the terrorism list. What process is afforded a U.S. citizen — not someone who overstayed a visa, not someone who crossed a border without permission — but an American citizen?  What process is currently afforded an American citizen before they go on that list?

DHS: I’m sorry, there is not a process afforded the citizen prior to getting on the list. There is a process should someone feel they are and unduly placed on the list.

Gowdy: Yes there is. And when I say ‘process,’ I’m actually using half of the term due process, which is a phrase we find in the Constitution — that you cannot deprive people of certain things without due process.

So I understand Mister Goode’s idea, which is wait until you’re right has been taken from you and then you can petition the government to get it back. I understand that that’s his idea. My question is can you name another constitutional right that we have that is chilled until you find out it’s chilled, and then you have to petition the government to get it back? Is that true of the First Amendment?

DHS: Sir, there are strict criteria before anyone gets put on the list.

Trey Gowdy: That’s not my question ma’am. That is not my question. My question is what process is afforded a United States citizen before that person’s constitutional right is infringed? He’s fine when we do it with the Second Amendment. My question is, ‘How about the First?’ How about we not let them set up a website or Google account? How about we not let him join a church until until they can petition the government to get off the list. How about not get a lawyer? How about the Sixth Amendment?

How about you can’t get a lawyer until you petition the government to get off the list? Or my favorite — how about the Eighth amendment? We’re going to subject you to cruel and unusual punishment until you petitioned the government to get off the list.Is there another constitutional right that we treat the same way for American citizens that we do the Second Amendment? Can you think of one? **pause** Can you think of one?

DHS: I don’t have an answer for you, sir.

Ms. Burriesci didn’t have an answer because deep down she knows that Mr. Gowdy is correct.

Do you know who else agrees with Mr. Gowdy and not with comic book writer Dan Slott?

Answer: The American Civil Liberties Union.

“The standards for inclusion on the No Fly List are unconstitutionally vague, and innocent people are blacklisted without a fair process to correct government error,” the ACLU wrote on Dec. 7, 2015. “The government has emphasized that it is making predictive judgments that people like our clients — who have never been charged let alone convicted of a crime — might nevertheless pose a threat. That’s a perilous thing for it to do.”

How would Dan Slott feel if, 50 years from now, Jews in the United States were routinely put on terrorist watch lists because they were merely suspected of crimes? They could not fly, they could not own weapons, and perhaps their 8th Amendment rights were frozen until they could prove they weren’t terrorists.

That sounds pretty scary, right? Not to Dan Slott.

If you think due process is an essential component to living in a free society, then Dan Slott insults you on Twitter. That is because, like I said, he is a political vulture. It may be fitting for a guy who regularly writes about Spider-Man’s villains, but it is not funny.

With that said, I highly suggest listening to Reason’s Remy sing “How to React to a Tragedy,” with Dan Slott in mind. It perfectly lampoons activist-writers like those employed by Marvel.

Editor’s Note: Hat tip to Colossus of Rhodey for bringing attention to Mr. Slott’s tweets.

Dan Slott slimes ‘gun owners’; Marvel would fire writer for similar tweet about ‘Muslims’

Dan Slott gun

It was only days ago that Marvel writer Dan Slott talked to Newsarama about internet “dicks.” The comic book “news” site saw nothing ironic about asking the guy who regularly acts like an unprofessional clown on social media to espouse on his critics. That is probably part of the reason he has started up again with political attacks that would get him fired if he switched out subjects like “gun owners” with “Muslims.”

Take the following Dan Slott tweet: “Ever notice how every gun owner who tweets is a responsible gun owner? My theory: All irresponsible ones have shot up their keyboards.”

What would Dan Slott think of someone if he came across a tweet like: “Ever notice how every Muslim is a responsible Muslim? My theory: All irresponsible Muslims have prematurely detonated their suicide vests.”

That would be incredibly mean and uncalled for since the vast majority of American Muslims break no laws — just as millions of American gun owners break no laws. A tweet like that would be a low blow and the hallmark of a very immature man.

Ask yourself this question: Why is Dan Slott a “gregarious” guy when he slimes patriotic Americans who have broken no laws, when in your heart-of-hearts you know The Amazing Spider-Man writer would go off on an epic rant if you took his own tweets about “gun owners” and tweaked them to target “Muslims”?

Who said Mr. Slott was “gregarious,” you ask?

Answer: Newsarama (Jim McLauchlin wouldn’t want to risk losing his access to the writer, now would he?)

When it comes to the Internet and comic books, people can be d**ks. Obsessive d**ks. …

We slap labels on all things Internet. It’s a “virtual” world. But virtual can crash into real in a hurry when he Internet Rage Machine gets cranking. But what is the Machine? Is the Rage misplaced? And what fiefdom do you live in? …

Dan Slott, Marvel’s Amazing Spider-Man writer, muses that “I could write whole books on this,” but gets very itchy, declining to cite specific examples.

“You never want to let that guy know he got under your skin, and you never want to show people examples of bad behavior to emulate,” he says.

Slott is a gregarious, friendly guy who’s always willing to interact with fans on Twitter and the like. It’s where he’s from.

On the whole, Slott tries to measure his online interactions. He recently called the aggregate a “heightened reality,” where the bright spots get brighter, but the dark areas show up so much darker.

Again, Newsarama found nothing ironic at all about the guy who can flip like a switch between opining on social media “dark spaces” and attacking Marvel readers who exercise rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

Dan Slott Second Amendment

The reason why Dan Slott got “itchy” about citing examples of critics who get under his skin is because he knows this blog is one of the few places calling him out on his mean-spirited Twitter feed (it’s okay if he attacks the “right” targets — emphasis on “right”).

And remember: Dan Slott is done “wasting time on hate” — even though it’s obvious to any objective observer that he spends plenty of time dishing it out.

Perhaps it doesn’t count if you don’t agree with him politically. Once you dehumanize a person it’s okay to mock and ridicule them, right Mr. Slott?

Dan Slott Twitter
Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to catch up on the latest Newsarama piece. It’s the one that is quick to call out internet “dicks” without ever asking unprofessional writers to explain their own troubling behavior.

Exit Question:

Consider the following from Newsarama:

The world is full of problems: Ebola, ISIS, potholes, global warming, and more. So you’d think people would spend their time doing something more productive than railing on about Spider-Man.

Newsarama — a site that depends on traffic generated by people who are interested in comic books — will immediately criticize Spider-Man fans who enjoy discussing Spider-Man, but it has nothing to say about Spider-Man’s actual writer for his unprovoked political attacks on entire groups of law-abiding Americans. At what point does Newsarama just admit its role as Marvel’s shameless handmaiden?