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.)
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.
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.)
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.
deleted by creator