• cloudshouter@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 days ago

    “I don’t know if I would have done it. Unless nobody was around, then I’d give you a yacht ride to my friends island.”

  • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    To give some modicum of credit: I think this was his attempt at talking the lifeguard up. Like: “Wow, you’re such a hero!”

    But the problem is that the exclamation (regardless of truth) is supposed to be like: “Wow, I don’t know if I would’ve been brave enough to do that! You’re a real hero.” Not that you just “might not have” as though saving a human life would be too inconvenient.

    Then the 16-year-old kid gets to feel really brave because even the president thinks they are. (Also doesn’t help that this current POTUS is an abject, selfish coward.)

    • mfed1122@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      I agree. This is how he meant it and how anyone who likes him takes it. It makes him likeable to those people. It’s so childish to pretend it isn’t.

      These types of “news” articles I think are actually quite dangerous. It shifts the battleground into weaker territory. If you’re a prosecutor trying to prove a guy needs a life sentence, and you have thirty testimonies of him beating puppies with hammers, why would you pull up to court saying shit like “your honor, the defendant’s cologne is too sharp and clearly in poor taste”? Meanwhile everyone who justifiably hates the puppy-flattener is excited to jump on ANY bandwagon to hate the guy, no matter how flimsy it is. Next thing you know the court is all talking about his cologne. Then the defendant comes in with some actually good explanation for that like “they didn’t have my regular cologne in prison” and now it looks like maybe the prosecution was wrong about him. The flimsy bandwagon falls apart.

      I’ve said it before on here:

      We MUST resist the urge to criticize bad people for weak reasons when they already provide us with stronger arguments against themselves.

  • D_C@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    “That’s very scary.”, said the orange child rapist, “You must’ve shit yourself… I know I just did…again.”

    • Spiv@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Literally the only time he’s honest is when he’s talking about doing something terrible

  • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    I hope I can do something heroic one day, so I can be invited to the White House, and I can hold a press conference to tell the entire world: “'Fuck NO! I’m not interested in letting that corrupt, treasonous, pedophile, rapist loser bask in the glow of my glory. I don’t want to be anywhere near him, where I have to breathe his stench.”

  • Gladaed@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    Also, rethorically perfectly fine. His language does tend to follow common phrases but only is tangentially similar anyway.

    Could have said something along the lines: don’t know if I could have done it. Probably couldn’t. Probably wouldn’t. I don’t know.

    His inner monologue is spoken out loud and his social filter barely exists. This isn’t news.

    He can make anything sound respect less, that being said.

    • WideEyedStupid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      Are you by any chance German, or Dutch, or Danish, or a few others I’m sure? I’m Dutch and we would also literally translate it to respectless (respectloos in Dutch, just like tactless = tactloos), but in English you’d say “disrespectful.” ;)