Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2017 17:54:04 GMT -5
1) The first one is arguably* offensive -- but within the confines of her function as a talking head/media person (which doesn't carry the same responsibilities as the president's job), and also makes no attempt to glorify violence. Also, it was in response to Trump's totally egregious and grotesque tweet about her.
2) Damn straight, and I don't see how anyone who knows the play and its history can argue otherwise. But we have a thread for that and I amply explained why there.
3) Yes, it's offensive, and unlike Mika's jibe, it was (a) retweeted by the goddamn president, and (II) encourages violence. And it was done anonymously, purely to stir up anti-media feelings, which already have people cheering a congress critter body-slamming a reporter.
And I'm flabbergasted that anyone is sympathetic to this troll, or thinks the Joe/Mika armtwist with the Enquirer article is at all the same thing as this.
ETA:
*And finally, the tweet about the small hands? Yeah, you have to extrapolate some to get to the small penis thing. I didn't make that connection until you brought it up. It was a picture of two tiny hands reaching for a cereal bowl -- which, moreover, she tweeted in response to him (apparently falsely) saying she had a facelift and was bleeding all over the place, which is why he declined to meet her even though she was begging him to do so. Oh, yeah, that's just like a video of Trump pummeling a reporter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2017 18:07:47 GMT -5
Mika's alleged "small penis" tweet, for those who have not seen it -- the one Rob refers to in his (1) above: ETA: Mind you, that's her response to Trump tweeting this: It's the back of a freaking Cheerios box. In response to that nasty piece of shit tweet. You know what I call that? Restraint. ETA: sorry, that image was a trifle yuuuge. I reduced it.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Jul 5, 2017 18:13:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jul 5, 2017 18:38:01 GMT -5
Just seconding the opinion that one of these things is not like the others.
The very first thing the wrestling tweet made me think of was the actual, real-life event of a politician body-slamming a reporter.
The tweet wasn't offensive to me so much as disturbing as fuck. To LOL it away as the media "getting pwned"--I would probably have agreed a month ago.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2017 18:48:05 GMT -5
Just seconding the opinion that one of these things is not like the others. The very first thing the wrestling tweet made me think of was the actual, real-life event of a politician body-slamming a reporter. The tweet wasn't offensive to me so much as disturbing as fuck. To LOL it away as the media "getting pwned"--I would probably have agreed a month ago. Actually -- taken out of all context, forgetting the incident with the Guardian reporter and the congress critter and all of Trump's ranting and threats about shutting down the press and enacting new laws to curtail the first amendment... ...yeah, I might have agreed, too, or at least not have felt it was nearly as problematic as I do now -- maybe not last month, but last year maybe. A lot has gone downhill since last year. Not that I'd make it illegal or anything, even now. But I think in context, it's disturbing. And yes, that's probably a better word than offensive.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2017 19:12:50 GMT -5
I also must add --
are men really so freaking sensitive about the size of their precious penis that a meme as indirect as that Cheerio box, making no mention of penises and coming from a woman who has never seen Trump's penis and can have no idea of its size, is equivalent to the "low IQ/crazy/bleeding from a facelift" tweet or a video showing a beatdown on a reporter (following an incident in which a reporter actually was beaten by a politician)?
Because, I'll be honest, sitting here as a woman, that's just bizarre.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jul 5, 2017 19:14:12 GMT -5
I honestly simply cannot believe the defenses and justifications I'm reading for CNN here and elsewhere on this, the attempts to make it perfectly acceptable for a national news organization to go after a random private individual who posted a harmless gif. My take on CNN: I don't agree that they were "blackmailing" him. In fact, I think that suggestion is rather silly. I think what likely happened is that they identified him, were going to publish his name, and were nice enough not to do so, in part* due to his profuse apologies and recants and begging and whatnot. In the article, they kind of had to state not only his anonymity but also why they were granting it. (As far as I know, there's no journalistic credo that anonymity should be given to trolls because... people will then know they're trolls? -- or worse, bigots, racists, etc.) Stating they weren't granting anonymity "forever and ever" was necessary because it wasn't even a journalistic imperative in the first place, and also because he doesn't deserve it, and also because it could be a story later. *I think the other part was due to the fact that CNN hunted him down in the first place. That, I think, was a dumb thing for CNN (or journalists in general, when it comes to gifs) to do. I mean, "Breaking News: creator of GIF identified as 37-year-old used car salesman from Kentucky." Lame. Boring. Why did they bother to find out who he was in the first place? That's my criticism. Maybe there's a reason but I don't see one. Except for, of course, clickbait.** **Then again, nothing new here, nothing out of the ordinary, no matter what media outlet we're currently bitching about.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jul 5, 2017 19:33:13 GMT -5
I also must add -- are men really so freaking sensitive about the size of their precious penis that a meme as indirect as that Cheerio box, making no mention of penises and coming from a woman who has never seen Trump's penis and can have no idea of its size, is equivalent to the "low IQ/crazy/bleeding from a facelift" tweet or a video showing a beatdown on a reporter (following an incident in which a reporter actually was beaten by a politician)? Because, I'll be honest, sitting here as a woman, that's just bizarre. They become irrational because they're afraid it's true. I blame porn.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2017 20:03:07 GMT -5
They become irrational because they're afraid it's true. I blame porn. I'd like to blame Angie , but can't find my way clear to doing it. I'll work on it. ETA: I mean, seriously -- you can't tell the size of a man's penis -- certainly not his erect penis -- from his hands or from staring at his pants-and-underwear-covered crotch. So, a person who has never seen you naked can't possibly assess your penis size. Even if we take Mika's Cheerio box as a "tee hee, Trump has a tiny penis" (which I frankly think is a stretch), she obviously doesn't know. Now, a former lover commenting on his penis -- that's another matter. Rob and I keep getting astonished at each other lately, but I admit, I'm astonished that he finds that Cheerios box to be such a problem, especially in light of what Mika was responding to. I like Amadan's "kid kicking grown man in the shins, man responding by punching her in the face," but really, it's worse than that. It was more like "man punches kid in the face, kid responds by sticking out her tongue."
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jul 5, 2017 20:35:02 GMT -5
But I can't believe that CNN actually felt the need to track down the guy who made the gif. It's pretty harmless, imo, especially as compared to millions of other gifs that are out there. Also, I'm hearing that the guy is actually only 15 years old. Is that correct? And CNN--in first making a stink about the gif and now tracking the guy down and threatening him--is making sure it stays a story. Indeed, there are now a ton of other similar gifs flowing freely through twitter, as #CNNblackmail tops the list of trends right now. But maybe they're operating from the idea that any publicity is good publicity? Maybe they're just thin-skinned and vindictive? And CNN--by allowing an obvious threat in the story--has now created a shitstorm for itself. How smart is that? CNN has just tossed all of Trump's supporters--along with folks like 4Chan--a huge piece of red meat. What is sad and contemptible here--in this particular incident--is CNN, imo. They went out of their way to track down the maker of this gif. Why? To show that there are lowlife trolls on the internet who say awful things? Stop the presses. Because the gif was so outrageously over the line? Come on. And THEN, they allow the writer of the story to issue a threat to the maker of this gif in the story. It's truly a great moment in journalistic integrity... That's what you said. That's why I noted the play. If you're walking back the above and turning it into a symbolic assault on the Fourth Estate, okay. But regarding that, again in this particular instance, CNN peeps went out of their way to track down a nobody and then threaten that nobody. That's an example of the Fourth Estate abusing their power, imo. That's fine. Hold them to a higher standard. But CNN still should be held to some standard, no? "Because Trump" isn't a valid justification to play search and destroy with some random nobody on the internet, just because of a nothing gif that apparently some at CNN didn't like. I don't think searching out the creators of this gifs in order to punish them is a legitimate exercise of the press at all. They're free to reveal his identity. I'm free to view such an action--like the hunt, itself--as a huge mark against the org in question (in this case CNN) and against those "journalists" behind the action. Maybe CNN can hire some private eyes to spy on these horrible gif-makers to show that they've cheated on their wives! Or--even worse--that they don't recycle! I don't have a problem with CNN-- Sure looks like a problem.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Jul 5, 2017 20:49:53 GMT -5
1) Person creates controversial piece of artwork; chooses to remain anonymous due to the nature of the piece. 2) Massive, soulless corporation threatens to "out" artist, possibly leading to public humiliation or even physical attack. 3) "Liberals" cheer the actions of the massive corporation.
It truly has become bizarro world.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jul 5, 2017 21:07:16 GMT -5
1) Person creates controversial piece of artwork; chooses to remain anonymous due to the nature of the piece. 2) Massive, soulless corporation threatens to "out" artist, possibly leading to public humiliation or even physical attack. 3) "Liberals" cheer the actions of the massive corporation. It truly has become bizarro world. "Artist," you say? I got some more "artwork" from this "artist" for you right here, Don. Here's some more "artwork" for you, Don. Yes, this is truly Bizarro World. When conservatives and so-called "Libertarians" rail against the media and turn a blind eye to the sickest and twisted bile that inspires and creates monsters like Dylan Roof. It sure makes me glad I'm neither a conservative or a so-called "Libertarian." Bizarro Word is not a nice place to visit and I sure wouldn't want to live there. Or have to defend it either.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jul 5, 2017 21:17:35 GMT -5
^What nightimer said.
Ugh. What a disgusting person, and he KNEW it, too. He didn't deserve anonymity. CNN was too kind.
ETA: just to be clear, he deserves public humiliation, not physical harm.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jul 5, 2017 21:48:31 GMT -5
I mean, seriously -- you can't tell the size of a man's penis -- certainly not his erect penis -- from his hands or from staring at his pants-and-underwear-covered crotch. So, a person who has never seen you naked can't possibly assess your penis size. Even if we take Mika's Cheerio box as a "tee hee, Trump has a tiny penis" (which I frankly think is a stretch), she obviously doesn't know. Now, a former lover commenting on his penis -- that's another matter. Agreed. That would be hitting below the belt, as it were. As would any commentary that claimed intimate knowledge of another person. Kind of like claiming knowledge of a person's recovery from plastic surgery. A more "equal" insult would be for Trump to speculate on how much plastic surgery Mika might have had. Though still not presidential, at least more on par. I can't believe I just typed that. This is what it's come to?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2017 21:51:02 GMT -5
Even had Mika's comment been worse than his, even if hers had come first, he is president and she is a talking head. The responsibilities are not equivalent.
|
|