clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Jerk shares opinion about baseball nets online

“A 6% reduction in visibility? By your logic, I’m entitled to 6% of your paycheck.”

Colorado Rockies v New York Mets Photo by Mike Stobe/Getty Images

Shane Richardson wasn’t expecting to lecture strangers about protective baseball netting on Thursday.

“I was dicking around at work, when all of a sudden a bunch of virtue signallers were talking about some kid getting hit by a baseball,” said the 27-year-old programmer, sipping a Diet Mountain Dew. “They were whining about how we need more nets to keep people safe. I was outraged.”

The self-described independent libertarian opened Twitter, immediately started searching for mentions of the incident during Wednesday’s Twins/Yankees game and responded with “facts and logic” from his @AltGalt247 account.

“It was pretty cool, being able to own people with how they were wrong and brutalizing my freedom.”

The @AltGalt247 account responded multiple times to 17 different baseball writers and fans, often telling them that they were “proving my point” if they responded.

“Some snowflake said the cost of extending nets at stadiums was relatively minor,” said Richardson. “Minor to who? They just love to spend other people’s money.”

Another writer mentioned the new nets were even less visually intrusive while still providing the safety of the traditional nets that are behind home plate.

“I had to laugh,” said Richardson, exhaling a vape plume. “Let’s say it makes it 6% harder to see. A 6% reduction in visibility? By your logic, I’m entitled to 6% of your paycheck. It’s axiomatic.”

The writer called Richardson a “total butthole” and blocked him.

“Nice ad hominem,” said Richardson. “These guys can’t argue facts, just appeals to emotion and nanny-state solutions.”

The father of the girl injured said she’s “doing all right,” but no further information is available.

“Baseball sucks,” Richardson added. “I haven’t gone to a game since I was a kid. Boring.”