Another log on the fire.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/65ad29a4-f75b-3b07-b394-23a302fdc10a/gas-station-offers-reward-for.html
What do we think now?
It doesn’t say the head has to be severed and that it’s one-time offer.
Kathy Griffin should go there and get the money. And again the next day and so on…
Of course he’s not old enough to ‘parse’ ‘humor’ a lot grown ups don’t find at all humorous. You’re free to disagree but your opinion that it’s humor is not a fact.
And there’s no way to be sure a president’s kids aren’t hearing ‘jokes’ aimed at them, or aren’t at Barron’s age freaked out by an image of their dad’s severed head. That’s why condemnation of this kind of stuff should be universal, and not ‘yeah but’ defended with tu quoque arguments (not saying you did, but there’s plenty of it IMO).
Especially on the ‘bullied’ nonsense about a specific celebrity ‘comedian’ making these kinds of ‘jokes’. That’s where the comparison departs from basically anonymous effigy or unacceptable commentary by nobodies on the internet or in protest marches, even aside from the tu quoque logical fallacy. Those acts themselves aren’t any less disagreeable (to the extent really comparable in and of themselves) but there’s no claim in that case that the perpetrator of the outrage is being ‘bullied’ if deservedly harshly criticized. And while Bush and Obama both made a habit of ignoring unacceptable stuff like this, it’s not really IMO an obligation of a president or his or her family to ignore it. They can give both barrels. That’s nothing to do with suppressing free speech in an official capacity, but rather their own exercise of free speech.
No, it’s not. What’s rotten is people bringing children into it when they have absolutely no relevance to anything. Things exist that children aren’t ready for. That’s the real world.
And, if Baron isn’t capable of understanding it, then he’s developmentally stunted. Seriously. He’s not some four year old who in the past would need to watch Mr. Rogers to learn the difference between real and make-believe.
“THINK OF THE CHILDREN” is never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER a valid argument. Stop being a dishonest sack of human shit.
We think that there is more than one idiot in the world.
And yeah, how could any child be negatively affected by seeing his father’s severed head (or a facsimile thereof). Absolutely no relevance at all. Like the old saying goes: children should be seen and not talked about.
I am proud.
I also doubt that the amplitude of my message on this board contributes to Kathy Griffin’s state of mind.
And make-up shaming? Really? :rolleyes:
And not only that but you apparently made John Mace think it was okay to engage in hair-shaming as well.
Only on the Dope. Here we have even the most outspoken Trump-haters in Hollywood and the media condemning Griffin’s beheaded Trump photo while on the SDMB it pretty much rates a big meh, but make a comment about her looks or makeup and that constitutes ‘bullying’ and is really over the line.
Of course it is! Children are essentially helpless and powerless as well as under-developed emotionally and in the ability to reason and understand things. The fact that so many people have bought into your point of view as an excuse to prioritize their own selfish inclinations is a large part of the reason why there are so many screwed up kids today.
Maybe it’s time to start getting more serious about those death threats. We already have laws about it. Enforce them - EQUALLY
I’m sure our trolls will have NO problem with that. Because that fool’s one of them. Free speech. Blah blah.
Well, of course not. Every single bit of this is subjective. I subjectively think Kathy Griffin was way over the line with that photo shoot, and I subjectively think her joke about going after Barron is funny because of course nobody would do that. I didn’t know his age when I made that post, though. I see now that he is eleven. That’s a bit young to understand.
See, this is the thing. I’m currently arguing in another thread that it’s reasonable for someone to be offended by Bill Maher using the word ‘‘nigger’’ in the context that he did. And some people disagree with me and are essentially arguing that Bill Maher is shock humor, that’s his schtick, so it’s totally okay. Apparently to some people, comedians are a protected class. Now I tend to cut comedians some slack, but exactly how much slack we should cut them is entirely subjective.
And FWIW, because I’m sure someone will try to argue otherwise, I don’t think what Bill Maher did is anywhere in the same league as what Kathy Griffin did.
[QUOTE=Corry El]
And there’s no way to be sure a president’s kids aren’t hearing ‘jokes’ aimed at them, or aren’t at Barron’s age freaked out by an image of their dad’s severed head. That’s why condemnation of this kind of stuff should be universal, and not ‘yeah but’ defended with tu quoque arguments (not saying you did, but there’s plenty of it IMO).
[/QUOTE]
Generally speaking, I think it’s poor form to go after kids, especially when they might hear what’s being said about them. As for the severed head bit, if it were my kid seeing that, I’d be pissed. For once in his whole entire life, Trump is justified in being pissed off. I don’t care what Obama haters did or did not do, that is entirely irrelevant. Even if he didn’t have a kid he’d be right to be pissed off. Who wouldn’t be?
But just as we can’t use ‘tu quoque’ arguments to excuse Kathy Griffin, we can’t use them to excuse the people threatening to kill her.
Dude, I’ve seen people claim on this very board that the convicted rapist Brock Turner was being bullied. I actually hate public shaming on all sides, and I hated seeing his face over and over and over, and I resent that I even know his fucking name, so I think it was a net loss for all concerned. But people have done far worse and still had people rush to their defense. Some people honestly seem to believe that you should be able to do virtually anything at all without public sanction.
I guess my question would be, from a strictly legal standpoint, what is the difference? Why is Kathy’s photoshoot protected and this guy’s sign not protected? Legally.
Let’s ask a different way…
Which one should have their speech protected and why, based on what words they actually said?
The way I see it, KG’s image is commentary, not incitement. The guy with the billboard could be incitement. I only say “could be” because IANAL and I know these things can be more nuanced than us lay folk imagine.
Could Kathy be sued for emotional damages as a result of what she did? Or is she legally protected from that?
I suppose the sign guy could also argue that he was just being ‘‘humorous.’’
Man, what a clusterfuck.
Not by any stretch of a rational imagination.
There are lines. People with personal integrity don’t cross them and they get pissed off when people lacking personal integrity do. KG not only crossed the line, she pole-vaulted over it.
Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, this is pot.
Okay, if we’re going to compare Clothy to Kathy Griffin, I’m going to need to see evidence that he’s ever done anything remotely on par.
So troll = someone who could defend something like that.
A BobLibDem like person who wishes what she did to Trump was true.
Got it. You progressive you!
How about you don’t. Answer it the way the poster intended it.
Not a Kathy Griffin fan myself, and under ordinary circumstances I would agree the photo went too far. But since it’s Trump, I honestly could not care less. FUCK Trump and his entire family, right down to his little 10-year-old shit or whatever age the bastard is. They can all go to hell. I would not object to a bloodied head of Adolf Hitler or Eva Braun, so I don’t object to this.