There you go Steve. The post right above this one.
I don’t remember Snoop apologizing after fake shooting clown Trump.
That’s because if you ask Snoop for an apology, he damned well might shoot you.
nm
the difference is that nobody is going to try to cut trump’s head off after seeing her photoshoot picture. Is anybody going to cut hers off after seeing that sign? Maybe, maybe not. We do, after all, live in a world where somebody was sufficiently stoked by allegations that a prominent politician was running a child sex slave ring out of a pizza joint that they went in prepared to shoot up the place.
Bolding mine. If everybody in this country is so trigger-happy right now, how do we know that? I find it unlikely, but surely not impossible, that someone would be inspired to go after Trump after seeing the shoot. Certainly, the photo shoot isn’t less absurd of a prompt than lies about a pizza joint. We don’t really know how crazies are going to react, do we? Determining that one thing is inherently more dangerous than the other seems like a lot of guesswork to me. I really wish I understood free speech laws better.
Just because someone is inspired to do violence by something you said (or did), doesn’t mean that you have incited violence. But when you tell someone: Bring me the head of so-and-so, you leave yourself open to that possibility. Griffin is safe, but the guy with the sign could be vulnerable. Most likely, though, he will just be told to take down his sign.
Whether the owner of the sign is told to take it down or not, there hasn’t been any evidence or even sound argument on why either shouldn’t be allowed. Unless there’s other information out there saying otherwise. If there is I think it’s dumb and unconstitutional - both, and everything else, as bone-headed as it is, has to be allowed.
The conversation starts after that, IMO.
I don’t have a problem with the government outlawing solicitation to a contract killing. YMMV. But the SCOTUS uses the Imminent Lawless Action Test to decide these cases.
Not the way it went down according to the photographer.
Well jeez Louise, the right wing goes to the opera and swoons over the final scene from Salome and that’s “art”, but let another performer do a Strauss tribute with a Trump head, and they get all outraged and angst-y.
This kerfuffle in a chamber pot probably will turn out to be a great career move for Kathy Griffin, even though it’s made her buddy Al Franken run for cover.
But her own claim about being ‘bullied’ centered on (the) Trump(s), not on anonymous/nobodies making ‘death threats’ (usually a mixture in these cases of more or less plausible ‘death threats’, whether the person claiming to be the target of them is of the left or right tribe, in my observation). Your response was reasonable overall, but this point is basically a non-sequitur to whether it’s bizarre and ridiculous for Griffin to claim she’s been ‘bullied’ by the Trumps (or by powerful old white men in general etc).
Except Ted Nugent has been invited to the White House even though he threatened President Obama’s life more than once.
That last line added real power to your argument, idiot.
But seriously folks, ‘think of the children’ is correctly understood as a cheap appeal to emotion about children in general to make up for a lack of rational basis for a policy argument.
Saying particular kids shouldn’t have to see somewhat realistic images of their parents’ severed heads, or unkind ‘jokes’ made about them, the kids personally not the parent, isn’t ‘think of the children’. It’s ‘don’t be an asshole’.
Wishing ill on children who have done nothing to deserve it is twisted. You need to see a professional to help heal the damaged person you are.
I guess I could go along with that. But just be aware there are some out there who are NOT joking.
Suck it up, snowflake.
He’s too stoned to hit anyone. We’re all safe 
Yeah, but Martha will fuck you up.
[QUOTE=Corry El]
Your response was reasonable overall, but this point is basically a non-sequitur to whether it’s bizarre and ridiculous for Griffin to claim she’s been ‘bullied’ by the Trumps (or by powerful old white men in general etc).
[/QUOTE]
I agree with this. I’m not sure what all Trump has been saying but I would expect him to be pissed and it makes no sense at all to me what any of this has to do with her being a woman.
I would think that the impact upon the children who would be affected by a policy IS a rational basis for argument about said policy.