Imagine you two getting a room somewheres else besides this thread?
Freedom of contract. We sell them guns that kill them; they sell us drugs that kill us.
Donald Trump... Narcissist in Chief!
Imagine you two getting a room somewheres else besides this thread?
Can you recommend a safe space? :rave:
Can you recommend a safe space?
Imagine 6 billion people in your perfect image
That's a lot of handsome futherfuckers.
i'm gonna answer in a bit of a different order as i feel some of your questions have strayed from the original points i brought up; one was the validity of the accusation of trump mocking Kovaleski and the other being a pot calling the kettle black issue of media mocking trump's appearance.
Out of curiosity where in his two posts did he 'make a claim of bullying against a paper or media outlet'? Just trying to figure out how you arrived at this interpretation.
coilair's initial post or claim was that attacking trump "based on his appearance isn't unlike him making fun of a disabled person based on their appearance." the word bullying got introduced in a subsequent post. whether the words attack, bullying, mocking or others are used they all mean essentially the same thing and carry the same contexr.
So, if the media sources intention is to Mock, deride, scoff at, jeer, sneer, tease, taunt or satirize (cough Ridicule by definition) a public figure, it's bullying and they should not publish that sort of material?
in serious - and i use that word losely - news sources/programs my personal opinion is that journalists should avoid that type of behaviour in order to maintain journalistic integrity. for programs where the intent is satire or comedy while it is ok, there is a bit of a slippery slope and a double standard there.
Would there be something wrong with that if it was? Since the advent of print journalism unflattering imagery has been used as a form of satire usually accompanying articles criticizing public figures, was that bullying?
short answer yes - that's bullying. when a media source is using it's position of influence to mock/deride then that's bullying. you may not think so because you find it funny or have a dislike for the target of the attack, but it is technically called bullying.
I thought we were talking about images in the media, now we're talking about the image that Chup posted again?
i took the image chup posted to be one from a media source, hence the tie in.
I watched a clip on youtube that tried to make this claim, maybe it's the one you're citing, I don't know. I didn't find the two other times that Trump mocked people in a similar, not identical, fashion, to be compelling enough evidence to believe that he was not mocking the reporters disability, which based on his past behavior of readily attacking any critic's appearance, seems reasonable to me.
i see it differently. the video you watched is probably the same one i saw. and while overly compelling as you suggest, it creates enough doubt as to be able to say conclusivley that trump was mocking the reporter's disability. couple things here. one, i am not saying trump didn't mock Kovaleski's response to his question, what i am saying is that there is enough to doubt to call into question the claim that he was mocking Kovaleski's disability. besides have you watched video of Kovaleski? he doesn't have his arm around in the manner trunp is accused of mocking him with. second, trump did lie about not having previously met of spoken with Kovaleski, that is clear.
btw, here is another vid of trump using those similar gestures to actually mock himself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20KAquo3BxQ
Bit of a reaching claim no? Does Trump mock everyone in the same manner? What evidence are you basing this on? Because, in my admittedly limited searching, the only evidence I've seen to support this is a youtube video where he mocks people in a similar (not identical) manner… twice. Maybe you've got a different source though.
same answer as above. there is enough doubt to discredit the claim that trump is mocking the reporter's disability. that claim has been made by i would guess all the major media outlets in the same manner they've fabricated other claims where they take a smaller part of a bigger episode to misrepresent the whole story and justify their "news" as real. that's where the discussion for fake news should be centered, well before the obvious fake news that many seem to fall for.
I disagree. As I've repeated several times, I do not agree that posting pictures of a public figure that they deem to be unflattering, is bullying. If we don't agree on this simple premise, there is no need to continue the conversation.
i see it as an example of bullying.
person a does something to mock/intimidate/threaten person b
person b objects to such behaviour
person a continues to mock/intimidate/threaten person b in the same manner.
if you disagree with that then would you call that type of behaviour?
We don't know what our limits are, so to start something with the idea of being limited actually ends up limiting us.
Ellen Langer
Two (now three) short clips of Trump using similar gestures is not enough evidence to convince me he wasn't mocking the reporters disability. Given Trump's long track record of attacking and mocking his critic's appearance, it's more probable that he WAS mocking the reporter's disability than not in my view. As I said to you months ago, I'm not as willing to dismiss deplorable behavior as easily as you apparently are.
i see it as an example of bullying.
person a does something to mock person b
person b objects to such behaviour
person a continues to mock person b in the same manner.if you disagree with that then would you call that type of behaviour?
Since posting an unflattering picture of someone is neither intimidating nor threatening, using those words in your example is just a pretty blatant attempt to 'load the question', I've removed them. So, what would I call that behavior? Mocking.
Also, in my view the 'media' did not set out to mock Trump. So your example is further flawed, it's also painfully oversimplified. In my view, the media's initial intention wasn't to mock Trump, it was to report the news. Trump looked at his chin in the pictures that they were posting and decided that they were unflattering. He then lashed out at the media on twitter and at rallies and threatened the media with repercussions if they continued to post 'unflattering' images of him. In response, and in defiance after being threatened, some members of the media continued to use 'unflattering' images of Trump. IMO hilarity ensued.
As I said though, I don't think posting images of someone is bullying and IMO your scenario should actually read:
person a does something that person b's find 'offensive'
person b objects to such behavior, and lashes out publicly and subsequently threatens person a
person a, partly in an act of defiance, continues to repeat, and increases frequency of behavior that person b finds offensive.
As I said earlier, I understand where your coming from. I don't agree with you. I think the term bullying is overused and I certainly don't think it applies when a public figure, who many would say ACTUALLY fits the 'classic definition of a bully' in regards to his treatment of the media, doesn't like the way that they're being portrayed in the media and lashes out with threats. Bullying in my mind, and in definition, implies that one of the parties is in a position of weakness, or helplessness. That is not the case here IMO. One of them is now arguably the most powerful figure in the free world. If we can't agree that this isn't an example of bullying, there's nothing left to say.
It's a puppet regime anyways, Trump is a distraction.
People always ask me what's the phenomenon
Yo what's up? Yo what's goin' on- Adam Yauch
Mnuchin twitches like a coke head… :lol:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSoV1tkiUIQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSsVelnPdkg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y5NJBL_U5Q
Freedom of contract. We sell them guns that kill them; they sell us drugs that kill us.
You're right, it took them a day or so before they started beating minorities, jumping people wearing Obama shirt shouting 'Ngger president' and 'Fck Obama', hanging effigies from trees and burning a predominantly black church.
You're right, it took them a day or so before they started beating minorities, jumping people wearing Obama shirt shouting 'Ngger president' and 'Fck Obama', hanging effigies from trees, firing employees for voting for him and burning predominantly black churches.
this is a good example of why i brought up the issue of trump mocking the reporter's disability as being questionable. if you read your article is says "they would be fired if they voted for Obama", it does not state they were actually fired as you claim. you may see this as a minor discrepancy amidst all the other evidence, but it is the same type of discrepancy wrt the claimed mocking.
being accurate with what happened and believing what you think happened are not always the same thing.
the reason i bring it up is that being inaccurate and making false claims delegitimizes the truth as to why trump should never even have been allowed to be nominee for the republican party, never mind win the presidency. every misrepresentation of the truth, no matter how small, becomes an excuse for hte "other team" to point and say hey they're lieing, they're no good! it leads to the type finger pointing and disdain we've seen over the past few pages.
if there is no respect for evidence, no matter how unpalatable the alternative may be, then we may as well just fabricate everything.
We don't know what our limits are, so to start something with the idea of being limited actually ends up limiting us.
Ellen Langer
No bombs go off yet?
Sad that violence is marring a peaceful protest. It undermines any message that would otherwise be sent.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-inauguration-president-1.3944347
The World Accordion to Trump. Not mocking, just playing "air concertina".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSsYyEXnUe8
Oh yeah, don't call it an accordion. We hate that.
Sad that violence is marring a peaceful protest. It undermines any message that would otherwise be sent.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-inauguration-president-1.3944347
Disagree. It's only when you hit them in the pocketbook, ie property damage, that the filthy capitalists take notice.
Freedom of contract. We sell them guns that kill them; they sell us drugs that kill us.
Forum jump:
