Now I know I'm slightly obsessed by The Guardian, but in this piece, the author

[Burney]

blandly asserts that the President of the United States would "happily preside over televised hangings of gay people". There's no 'only kidding' or suggestion that this is satire - let alone factual evidence for this extraordinary assertion. She appears actually to believe this and has written it in an article for a leading newspaper. And what's more, no editor has at any point taken it out.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...right-wing-afd

Seriously, what is wrong with these people? Are they so far removed from normal discourse that they can't see how unhinged this sounds to normal people? Are their social circles so rarified that no-one ever challenges them when they come out with this sort of shít?

Let's leave aside all the other horseshít in the article and simply ask how we reached such a pitch of hysteria that people are uncrtitically making this sort of ridiculous, unfounded statement about a democratically elected politician without anyone calling them on it or suggesting they're being hysterical, offensive and mendacious?

[Luis Anaconda]

blandly asserts that the President of the United States would "happily preside over televised hangings of gay people". There's no 'only kidding' or suggestion that this is satire - let alone factual evidence for this extraordinary assertion. She appears actually to believe this and has written it in an article for a leading newspaper. And what's more, no editor has at any point taken it out.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...right-wing-afd

Seriously, what is wrong with these people? Are they so far removed from normal discourse that they can't see how unhinged this sounds to normal people? Are their social circles so rarified that no-one ever challenges them when they come out with this sort of shít?

Let's leave aside all the other horseshít in the article and simply ask how we reached such a pitch of hysteria that people are uncrtitically making this sort of ridiculous, unfounded statement about a democratically elected politician without anyone calling them on it or suggesting they're being hysterical, offensive and mendacious?

"One suspects, of course, that not only did Trump say it, but that he himself would happily preside over televised hangings of gay people if he thought it would get him good ratings."

If you read the whole sentence, it's actually quite different to how you've tried to portray it there

[Peter]

"One suspects, of course, that not only did Trump say it, but that he himself would happily preside over televised hangings of gay people if he thought it would get him good ratings."

If you read the whole sentence, it's actually quite different to how you've tried to portray it there

Its no less pathetic. Apart from anything else, it would get seriously ****ing good ratings and everyone knows it.

Oh, right, they mean his personal ratings.....

[Burney]

"One suspects, of course, that not only did Trump say it, but that he himself would happily preside over televised hangings of gay people if he thought it would get him good ratings."

If you read the whole sentence, it's actually quite different to how you've tried to portray it there

No, sorry, but that context doesn't alter in the fact that it's a wholly unacceptable, hysterical, irresponsible and idiotic thing to say, being based as it is in absolutely no fact whatsoever. She might as well accuse him of eating babies or having sex with farmyard animals for all the basis in truth what she's written has. It's a baseless slur founded in nothing but her own prejudice.

[Luis Anaconda]

No, sorry, but that context doesn't alter in the fact that it's a wholly unacceptable, hysterical, irresponsible and idiotic thing to say, being based as it is in absolutely no fact whatsoever. She might as well accuse him of eating babies or having sex with farmyard animals for all the basis in truth what she's written has. It's a baseless slur founded in nothing but her own prejudice.

There is a great difference but you chose not to see it.
And what were you saying about the permanently outraged the other day? Pot and kettle springs to mind

[Burney]

There is a great difference but you chose not to see it.
And what were you saying about the permanently outraged the other day? Pot and kettle springs to mind

I'm not outraged, just increasingly astonished by the way in which the left seems to have abandoned all critical faculties and judgement because someone they don't like has been elected President of the USA.

I'm sorry, but if you can honestly look at that sentence and not see anything wrong with it in terms of taste, verity or basic journalistic standards, I can only conclude that you, too, are afflicted with this condition.

[Ash]

"One suspects, of course, that not only did Trump say it, but that he himself would happily preside over televised hangings of gay people if he thought it would get him good ratings."

If you read the whole sentence, it's actually quite different to how you've tried to portray it there

Here's my understanding:

She doesn't assert, as Burney said, she suspects.

What does she suspect? First of all she suspects that Trump did say that Pence "wanted to hang them all". This is her opinion (not a fact). If Trump did say that then all it says is that Trump is more liberal about gays than Pence.

Secondly (removing the sub-clause) she "suspects ... that he (Trump) would happily preside over televised hangings of gay people if he thought it would get him good ratings."

So she's gone from using a rumour about Trump either joking or believing that Pence is highly illiberal about gays to suspecting that Trump is basically ok with hanging gay people.

That's only a notch or two down from assert, isn't it?

[Peter]

Here's my understanding:

She doesn't assert, as Burney said, she suspects.

What does she suspect? First of all she suspects that Trump did say that Pence "wanted to hang them all". This is her opinion (not a fact). If Trump did say that then all it says is that Trump is more liberal about gays than Pence.

Secondly (removing the sub-clause) she "suspects ... that he (Trump) would happily preside over televised hangings of gay people if he thought it would get him good ratings."

So she's gone from using a rumour about Trump either joking or believing that Pence is highly illiberal about gays to suspecting that Trump is basically ok with hanging gay people.

That's only a notch or two down from assert, isn't it?

I assumed the point LA was making was that the author wasnt necessarily saying that Trump wants to hang gays- she is suggesting he would be willing to do pretty much anything for the sake of good ratings.

This doesnt really add up, particularly as she says it immediately after suggesting he did say that his VP wants to hang them.

My judgement- she is saying he wants to hang gays. Case closed.

[Luis Anaconda]

I assumed the point LA was making was that the author wasnt necessarily saying that Trump wants to hang gays- she is suggesting he would be willing to do pretty much anything for the sake of good ratings.

This doesnt really add up, particularly as she says it immediately after suggesting he did say that his VP wants to hang them.

My judgement- she is saying he wants to hang gays. Case closed.

How does it not add up as it really what she says. (I admit it is clumsily written nonsense on the whole)

[Peter]

How does it not add up as it really what she says. (I admit it is clumsily written nonsense on the whole)

Because she doesnt say he will do anything to get ratings. She says he would happily preside over the hanging of gays to get ratings.

Removing this part is precisely the same as removing the ratings part. If she wants to say he will do anything to get ratings, say that. She doesnt. She says he would happily (happily!) preside over it for ratings. Whatever way you cut it she 'suspects' he would happily hang gays. Why does the motivation for hanging gays matter more than the, you know, hanging of gays?