Just when you think the media cannot sink any lower

[Hans Blaster]

Laws getting stricter doesn't equate to a "misleading distinction"

Laws get stricter on certain things for a reason. We evolve with the laws.

I'm not talking about how the laws change, I am talking about how people use the changing laws to imply virtue or non-virtue between those who experienced those laws differently.

 

[Belk]

There is one point of comparison that is valid. Mussolini was hung by the Communists in Italy. The communists in America are trying to hang Trump.

I believe that was Pence, on Trumps behalf.

 

[tz620q]

Lol!
ANYONE is trying to "hang" trump hey?
Not really.

And communists in the US eh? All 3000 registered communists?

Or are you confusing democrats with communists?

Sorry, I meant it to be funny. I added a smiley face to better make the point. In truth, I think we all get overwrought this time of year. I voted over the weekend and suddenly the stress melted away. I would encourage others to do the same. In truth, it is my opinion that there are enough checks and balances in place that either candidate will not be able to do all of the things they have promised.

 

[DaisyDay]

Perhaps what you think is racist rhetoric was instead attempts at comedy by a comedian?

Grant Cardone said, "She's a fake. I'm not here to invalidate her. She's a fake, a fraud. She's a pretender. Her and her pimp handlers will destroy our country."

Is this also some kind of comedy?

 

[rambot]

Perhaps what you think is racist rhetoric was instead attempts at comedy by a comedian?

My issue is that it has often been my experience that folks who are not well adjusted (it's the kinda of kids i've been working with for decades now) have a strong tendency to say awful things and then afterwards claim they were joking.
Folks say awful things and then blame people for being offended as if they are the problem.

I don't really abide by that because of my experiences. It's ALWAYS some kinda misanthropy being covered for so I don't like it; especially if it's particularly cutting.

 

[DaisyDay]

Saying Mussolini doesn't carry the same level of melodramatic fear mongering as saying Hitler and Nazis.

One of the rally's own speakers gushed about how excited he was to be at "a Nazi rally".

That's not much of a bar. As I said, they just gave their names to the US Customs officer who recorded their name, age, and place of origin (and how much stuff they brought). No one cared if they stayed or not. Everybody was "legal".

The ones who arrived by ship, sure. But anyone could just stroll over the land borders, freely.

I was surprised that Daniel Boone (was a man, a big man) strolled over the Spanish Louisiana border (later Missouri) and became a Spanish citizen. But he reverted to American after Jefferson made the purchase.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm not talking about how the laws change, I am talking about how people use the changing laws to imply virtue or non-virtue between those who experienced those laws differently.

Do we view any other legal changes (with regards to societal perceptions) through that particular lens you're describing?
(ex: things that used to be laxer but have become more strict)


Doesn't even have to be a polarizing issue for that matter...there are countless other examples that aren't political.

For instance, if an advertising agency, in defiance of the current laws, engaged in a certain type tobacco advertising in 2024 (in ways that would've been perfectly legal and commonplace in the 1980's), and people were upset about that and implied there was virtue in not doing that sort of thing...

Would anyone appeal to the fact they're "experiencing the law differently" than ad agencies in the 80's did?


Or perhaps a better example.

There was a time when drivers licenses weren't required to operate a car (in some states, as late as the early 50's). Would that prohibit anyone from criticizing a person who gets caught willfully driving without a license, just because that act was something that used to be legal at some point in history?

A person living in South Dakota in 1949 (driving without a license, as the state didn't have them as a requirement at that time), is more virtuous that a person who's willfully breaking that law in 2024 by driving without one.

 

[Vambram]

Grant Cardone said, "She's a fake. I'm not here to invalidate her. She's a fake, a fraud. She's a pretender. Her and her pimp handlers will destroy our country."

Is this also some kind of comedy?

Grant Cardone is not a professional comedian. However, the bold words you emphasized by him was probably a lame attempt from him to try to be funny. I find those words to be far, far less offensive than when the leaders of the Democratic Party call Donald Trump a dictator and compare Trump to Hitler.

 

[Vambram]

Jon Stewart defends comedian who joked about Puerto Rico at Trump rally: ‘I find that guy very funny’

Tony Hinchcliffe was widely criticized by media networks Monday for his roast-style jokes about Puerto Rico that many Trump campaign detractors labeled racism.

www.foxnews.com

Jon Stewart defends comedian who joked about Puerto Rico at Trump rally: ‘I find that guy very funny’
'To be fair, the guy’s just really doing what he does,' Stewart said of comedian Tony Hinchcliffe

The Daily Show host Jon Stewart hit back at critics of comedian Tony Hinchcliffe's performance at former President Donald Trump's Madison Square Garden rally Sunday.

Stewart laughed as he said: "There’s something wrong with me. I find that guy very funny. I’m sorry, I don’t know what to tell you," in response to a montage of news anchors expressing indignation over Hinchcliffe’s jokes, Mediate first reported.

Hinchcliffe was widely criticized by media networks and politicians on Monday for his roast-style jokes, most notably when he called Puerto Rico a "floating island of garbage" in reference to the U.S. territory's overflowing landfills, as well as other digs at Hispanics and Black people that critics labeled racism.
"Obviously, in retrospect, having a roast comedian come to a political rally a week before election day and roasting a key demographic – probably not the best decision by the campaign politically," Stewart said.

"But to be fair, the guy’s just really doing what he does," he added.

The comments were later disavowed by the former president's campaign.

"This joke does not reflect the views of President Trump or the campaign," Trump campaign senior adviser Danielle Alvarez noted in a statement.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Grant Cardone is not a professional comedian. However, the bold words you emphasized by him was probably a lame attempt from him to try to be funny. I find those words to be far, far less offensive than when the leaders of the Democratic Party call Donald Trump a dictator and compare Trump to Hitler.

I don’t know of any Democratic leaders who’ve called Trump Hitler.

 

[BPPLEE]

Grant Cardone said, "She's a fake. I'm not here to invalidate her. She's a fake, a fraud. She's a pretender. Her and her pimp handlers will destroy our country."

Is this also some kind of comedy?

No

 

[ozso]

40 or 44 cabinet people are not supporting his current bid.

But are they raging about him being Hitler?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Do we view any other legal changes (with regards to societal perceptions) through that particular lens you're describing?
(ex: things that used to be laxer but have become more strict)

I don't know, and I'm not sure what the relevance of those things would be. This is specifically about immigration and for me this line of discussion is about how people manipulate the term "legally" to make some group of current immigrants look differently (morally, it would seem) relative to earlier groups. Did my ancestors come here legally in 1846, 1848, 1852, 1855, and 1871? I don't know. Probably. There doesn't seem to have been any significant immigration laws *to* violate.

Doesn't even have to be a polarizing issue for that matter...there are countless other examples that aren't political.

For instance, if an advertising agency, in defiance of the current laws, engaged in a certain type tobacco advertising in 2024 (in ways that would've been perfectly legal and commonplace in the 1980's), and people were upset about that and implied there was virtue in not doing that sort of thing...

Would anyone appeal to the fact they're "experiencing the law differently" than ad agencies in the 80's did?


Or perhaps a better example.

There was a time when drivers licenses weren't required to operate a car (in some states, as late as the early 50's). Would that prohibit anyone from criticizing a person who gets caught willfully driving without a license, just because that act was something that used to be legal at some point in history?

A person living in South Dakota in 1949 (driving without a license, as the state didn't have them as a requirement at that time), is more virtuous that a person who's willfully breaking that law in 2024 by driving without one.

I'm not really interested in this example, nor have I spent any time looking it over.

 

[ozso]

My issue is that it has often been my experience that folks who are not well adjusted (it's the kinda of kids i've been working with for decades now) have a strong tendency to say awful things and then afterwards claim they were joking.
Folks say awful things and then blame people for being offended as if they are the problem.

I don't really abide by that because of my experiences. It's ALWAYS some kinda misanthropy being covered for so I don't like it; especially if it's particularly cutting.

There's a genre of entertainment literally called "insult comedy". So to say an insult comedian was only claiming to be joking while doing an insult comedy routine for an audience doesn't really follow.

 

[rambot]

But are they raging about him being Hitler?

Lol
Who cares?
They aren't supporting him. They worked tight with him. Some have said (iirc) they think he's a mix of incompetent and stupid.

But if you take away the people who think he's incompetent and stupid no one else thinks he's incompetent and stupid.

 

[ozso]

Lol
Who cares?
They aren't supporting him. They worked tight with him. Some have said (iirc) they think he's a mix of incompetent and stupid.

But if you take away the people who think he's incompetent and stupid no one else thinks he's incompetent and stupid.

I really don't know who you're talking about or what statements they've made. But the big deal right now is one person raving about him being a Hitlerian fascist. I think if it was all that true, there'd be more people on the bandwagon.

 

[Belk]

I really don't know who you're talking about or what statements they've made. But the big deal right now is one person raving about him being a Hitlerian fascist. I think if it was all that true, there'd be more people on the bandwagon.

You mean like leading history professors?

 

[loveofourlord]

I am not gaslighting you. Perhaps what you think is racist rhetoric was instead attempts at comedy by a comedian?

well given how many Puerto Ricans have now turned against trump and voting against him, I think the actual people think it was a racist joke, and I've seen no attempt by trump to denounce or speak out against what was said. You know maybe insulting and attacking a majour group that will be voting in many swing states isn't a good idea a week before the election.

 

[BPPLEE]

You mean like leading history professors?

Typical liberals

 

[BPPLEE]

well given how many Puerto Ricans have now turned against trump and voting against him, I think the actual people think it was a racist joke, and I've seen no attempt by trump to denounce or speak out against what was said. You know maybe insulting and attacking a majour group that will be voting in many swing states isn't a good idea a week before the election.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2024/10/29/pr_shadow_senator_zoraida_bux_endorses_trump_watch_out_for_emotional_manipulation_we_need_trump.html

Puerto Rico Shadow Senator Zoraida Buxó: Don't Be Distracted By Emotional Manipulation And Propaganda, We Need Trump​