Trudeau made Trump's favourite morning show again, this time with commentary from Professor Jordan Peterson.https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/960893156328923137 …
-
Show this thread
-
The US-right-wing pile-on re Trudeau's "peoplekind" is pretty misleading. He was lightly ribbing a woman who was rambling about the power of women, "God the Mother," and how the world needs womanly love. Fox excluded her response to him: "There you go, exactly. Yes. Thank you."pic.twitter.com/Wl4QIumWrA
94 replies 408 retweets 862 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @ddale8
Now what you did is misleading or ignorant—Fox did not exclude what you quoted during broadcast interview. I didn’t interpret interjection as a joke because Trudeau has made sensitivity & inclusive language an important part of his admin.
7 replies 5 retweets 30 likes -
Replying to @MrAndyNgo @ddale8
The fact that you are incapable of understanding humor is the fault of neither Trudeau nor Dale.
4 replies 5 retweets 69 likes -
Fuck off, Jeet. Seriously.
4 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @TerryGlavin @HeerJeet and
Trudeau this morning said it was a dumb joke that didn't work and he should stop doing that kind of thing. So the joke's on you, Jeet, and if you can't figure out why, "you are incapable of understanding humor."
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
The quality of the joke is disputable. It's a tough situation when you have a questioner who is rambling & audience is getting restless. My objection was to ideological misrepresentation of incident (which doesn't seem to bother you).
1 reply 3 retweets 5 likes -
A "tough situation"? In a Jerry Springer episode, maybe. I guess that's what we've come to. If you want to bother with an "ideological misrepresentation" of a bad Justin Trudeau joke committed by Piers Morgan or whoever, suit yourself. The whole thing is a fucking embarassment.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
If you acknowledge it's a joke then you also have to acknowledge that those pretending it was sincere (Fox News, etc.) are engaged in ideological misrepresentation. That's a fairly obvious point.
1 reply 2 retweets 6 likes -
I'm not clairvoyant, but I'm okay to take JT's word for it. My point is that it's come down to this: We're have a post-show debate here about which guests were craziest and whether Phil Donahue handled things properly & whether that joke he made sucked or not.
#unseriouspolitics1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
You don't have to be clairvoyant, you just have to read the transcripts. And why are we having this debate? Because people with a history of bad faith arguments misrepresented tenor of exchange.
-
-
Replying to @HeerJeet
My view on why this "debate" is happening at all is quite different, as I've tried to make plain. I'm trying to step back and take it in, and what I see is frivolousness in the extreme. Am on deadline just now. It's
#WhiteWednesday.0 replies 0 retweets 3 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.