Yeah, a classy advisor would have said “Is McCain’s resistance a long term problem?”
I would characterize him as being a lucky beneficiary of that, but yeah, it helps him more than others because he needs more help than others.
True. What are you thoughts on whether Prince Harry should shave before the wedding? I’m conflicted…
Well, that’s a really complex question that is difficult to answer in anything short of a wall of text, with diagrams and footnotes. But, after giving it a lot of thought an in an effort to keep things manageable wrt the hamsters, I’d say he definitely shouldn’t shave before the wedding. He needs to be seen an non-conformist and edgy, I think…and also looks really good, IMHO, with his well groomed beard.
It’s a little ironic that you highlight this specific article because CNN in general and Chris Cillizza in particular are emblematic of a histrionic and superficial coverage of the outrage du jour instead of in-depth coverage of substantial lapses in judgement and ethics. Cillizza’s opinions read like a 13 year old gossiping on Instagram, notwithstanding his careless use of language and stating opinion as evidence. For actual information and useful analysis you need to go to sources such as Propublica.org or The Washington Post instead of CNN.com’s hysterical and click-bait riddled opinionizing.
Stranger
Much (most? all?) humour, as any kid on the playground can attest, is an exercise in set theory, who’s in and who’s out, even if the sets are “the rest of the world” and “the poor schmuck who just fell down the manhole.” Thus the joke, Q: “why don’t feminists have a sense of humour?” A: “why don’t you think jokes about men are funny?” Public figures, and the rest of us, often misjudge the makeup of the group we’re addressing and have to scramble to avoid censure.
He was joking? I must have missed something.
No, those are jokes because they specifically mark themselves as such. They have a setup and a punchline. And they are being told in a context where the person specified that they were joking ahead of time. This is not in any sort of serious context, and it is clear that no one believes the comments in question.
These do not in any way compare to the response made here. It was a statement that does not contain any markers of a joke. And while it appears the entire context has not been leaked, the context suggests that it was a serious discussion. And if she (or anyone else there who wanted to defend her) could, one would think she’d tell everyone that she had established she was joking ahead of time. And the reports definitely indicate that people were not clear that she did not mean what she said.
There are other types of jokes, of course, but I would argue this doesn’t fit, either. It could be mockery or satire. But given that this was a person in a real political position, and there was no immediate talk that invalidated the statement, this seems unlikely. It could be sarcasm, but, again, it isn’t negated.
There is only one context of “joke” where this makes sense, and that’s the “joke” where you use the disguise of humor as an excuse to say something hostile that you really mean. And I am not alone in arguing that such comments are not a joke. Even if you put on some sort of inflection to make it sound funny, it’s still clear your intent is to say something horrible, but just add humor as deflection.
I won’t say that “no one” think this was a joke. But I will say that I believe the rational opinion on the matter is that this was not one. Along with the above, if a joke is misinterpreted as not a joke, the joke teller usually goes out of their way to make it clear they were just kidding. This isn’t proof that they were, of course, but the lack of any such statement until well after the fact suggests that they weren’t joking.
The only reason left to think it was a joke is that it’s just so obviously offensive and ridiculous that no one would be stupid enough to say it unless they were trying and failing to make a joke. But I don’t find that persuasive, especially coming from this White House. (Hell, any normal White House would have fired her on the spot no matter what.)
Considering all of this, I am quite confident in asserting it was not a joke.
And, for fuck’s sake, this is not remotely a superficiality. Just because there are other, worse things happening doesn’t mean that a bad thing becomes less bad. This woman’s comment is the exact type of comment where people respond by punching, because it’s entirely worth the consequences to them.
A conservative said something morally abhorrent. You don’t get to twist that into a reason why liberals are bad people. And, yes, I did notice how XT implied but didn’t come right out and say that these same liberals who are upset have said the same thing before.
I repeat all the time that tu quoque is not a valid argument. Why would anyone think an implied tu quoque is even better? Hiding your logical fallacy only makes it clear that you know that what you are saying wasn’t a good argument in the first place.
Stop trying to normalize the Trump administration. Any other administration, this woman would have been immediately fired. People doing worse things does not make the bad things better.
In my worst moments, I have said things that were that stupid.
I apologized. I acted (and spoke) differently afterwards.
Just saying.
It’s not just “not normal”, it’s intentionally and maliciously fucked up. Is it the first ever US administration to be blatantly fucked up on purpose? It’s almost looking like a psychology experiment now, trying to see how much bullshit Trump’s supporters will swallow. It’s looking like “unlimited amounts” is the answer.
I keep thinking “Come on, nobody is THAT stupid”. But every time, Trump supporters have answered “Oh yeah? Just watch”. And… they are. Or they’ve decided to act like they are, which amounts to the same thing.
This may shock you but not everybody with a dark sense of humor is a psychopath. In fact it’s the type of remark that I and others would make. Of course, I don’t work at the white house.
There may be a slight difference between “joke” and its nearest equivalents in German. The definition of “joke” doesn’t exclude comments which may be almost universally reviled as in poor taste, inappropriate for public discourse, or even downright cruel, as in the case of Kelly Sadler’s comment. Writers are calling that a joke but it doesn’t mean they’re saying they approve of it as such.
I feel like I just sat through a Master class at the Laugh Academy.
Yes. The statement I was responding to was: “It’s very simple: normal people clearly don’t think remarks like this are a joke.” It was not “It’s very simple: normal people clearly don’t think remarks like this are a joke unless they specifically mark them as such.”
If you want to defend the original statement, knock yourself out. If you want to defend a different statement, don’t pretend like I was responding to that different statement. I wasn’t.
Besides, unless you were in the room when the comments was made, you have no idea whether the person who said it “marked” it as a joke or not. Were you in that room when the comment was made?
Actually, what I said was that I find it ironic that people who badmouthed McCain in the past are all outraged about this, while people who supported him aren’t. This has nothing to do with humor and is instead a comment about tribalism, and how things can shift over time, including attitudes, if anything.
That said, I do think that humor often has a political orientation, with people of different political orientations unable to see the humor of the other side. I know a lot of conservatives who really dislike John Oliver or other ‘liberal’ comedians or comic news shows with a left leaning slant, and a lot liberals don’t like the humor of conservatives doing similar things from the other side. I’ve seen exactly this level of outrage from conservative over something in John Oliver’s show, to use one example, in fact, so even though that wasn’t the point I was making I appreciate you pointing it out so I could make the connection. 
Oh, and ETA: I didn’t say that what the OP is talking about is actually a ‘joke’. I think that’s spin, as I said earlier. Just FTR.
Thanks for your obvious concern, but I’ll stick with CNN (BBC and AJ) for my news. If you don’t like the opinion pieces I post to illustrate a point feel free to not take the click-bait.
My point wasn’t out of any concern but rather to note that Cillizza in particular is one of the most egregious offenders of the school of “Look what Trump said now! OMG! So horrible! What’s he going to say tomorrow?” et cetera instead of providing any substantive reporting or analysis that might actually cause a reader to speak out or contact their elected representives on some particular issue. It’s exhausting to read even for the length of an article much less the daily regurgitation of Trump’s manifest crassness, stupidity, and brazen corruption and that of the people he surrounds himself with. That a cabinet member makes a tasteless comment in a private meeting is hardly worthy of flashing headlines and “political analysis” about what it all means, when it’s really just another in a flurry of examples that people in politics are often mean spirited and debased (and is just as true on both sides of the political spectrum).
How about we expect news organizations to report actual news instead of having half a dozen people sit around a table bullshitting and stirring the pot and then calling it “analysis” as if they’ve contributed anything to the world. Unfortunately, that isn’t something that CNN is noted for.
Stranger
I don’t know (or frankly care) who Cillizza is. I was merely linking to the (opinion) article to illustrate a point. I noticed the title of the article, thought it was relevant to the point I was making, so linked to it. I get that you don’t like CNN and feel I should be looking at sources you approve of. I get this from my dad all the time who thinks I should be reading Fox. I’m used to CNN and the BBC and AJ, and while I don’t follow any news source religiously (I basically glance at them a few times a day to see what the top stories are, and sometimes read some of the opinion pieces if they look I consider myself as up to date on the news as I wish to be. If you want more out of your news source, well, more power to you…expect what you like and ensure they are doing as you expect.
Because it was funny?
Wait we are talking about the senator right?
I’m not sure that’s true. Who badmouthed McCain more - Obama or Trump? Disagreeing with someone’s politics is not necessarily badmouthing, though in Trump world it appears to be.
And McCain disagreed with Obama without badmouthing him either, as his famous defense of Obama showed. But that was back when adults ran for president.