211
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2024
211 points (92.0% liked)
politics
19238 readers
2104 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Hate trump but I think RawStory is misrepresenting this as they do much else.
Here is the reporting for the Guardian, a mpre legitimate source of news:
If a random comedian made that joke it would be offensive and slightly funny.
He's a former president, vying to be the next president, using a very real person's trauma to set up the punch-line of a joke. It's inappropriate and shows his lack of empathy.
It's inappropriate etc but it's not exactly making fun of the dead.
I try to think about these things from a "what would a median/swing voter think if they read this AND knew the context." I firmly believe that misleading headlines etc have helped trump by making it harder for those in the middle to trust media outlets.
The first quote is the EXACT same as the OP article, and it's disgusting to crack a joke about women rather have the money than their husband back. As the finale to a story about the woman who just lost her husband.
From the article 3rd paragraph:
So what part about making a joke about it is it they misrepresent?
Still sounds like a joke at his expense, no?
Not at his expense IMO, but poor taste anyhow
How is it not at his expense, to make a joke that some women would rather have the money than their husband back?
I don't think it's at his expense? The idea is that the deceased and his widow were in love and would value each other more than money:
whereas he claims that some people in the audience would be thrilled to trade their spouses for money.
Trump is using the widows response to her husbands death to deliver a joke. Trying to make the whole thing funny.
How is that joke not at their expense, when it's built on their situation?
"Ha, these two were deeply in love and had a marriage stronger than money! What losers!" Fairly hard to make the claim the joke is at their expense.
This might be a language thing though? The phrase at their expense tends to mean that whomever is the butt of the joke. In this case, the four audience marriages are the butt of the joke as they are not as in love as the deceased.
I don't know if you're old enough to have spoken at funerals. There are jokes you tell while doing so, usually framed like this wherein you're praising the deceased (usually a common memory, like their cooking) and comparing yourself or the crowd unfavourably.
Now, I'm not sure it was appropriate or wise for trump to try this at a fundraiser but it seems disingenuous to say he was making fun of the deceased, which is how most English readers would interpret the headline.
Very poor taste at the best. Crass regard for the tragedy is normal for the old weird felon.
Oh absolutely. It's just the phrasing of the headline implies he's joking about how dumb or whatever the guy is instead of say, that he had a beautiful and loving marriage.