THE LATEST PROOF OF PRESIDENT TRUMP’S DEPRAVITY!
He specifically asked for an exact replica of Barack Obama’s 2013 Inauguration cake! The HORROR!
Apparently nothing is too trivial to use to attack Donald Trump. Focus, guys, focus!
Trump asked the baker who made the official Inauguration cake—until today, I hadn’t given any thought to the Inauguration cakes of either Trump of Obama. and I was a happier man for it—to make an exact replica of one of Obama’s cakes. Why, I have no idea. I think both the original and the copy are tacky. Don’t you?
Celebrity baker Duff Goldman of TV’s “Ace Of Cakes” then tweeted that the cake at one of Trump’s Inauguration balls was a rip-off of his design. Social media Trump-haters immediately pronounced this as “100% plagiarism.” Donald Trump is plagiarizing cakes now! Is there anything he won’t do? I bet Hitler plagiarized cakes.
Whether this really is plagiarism is an interesting, if stupid, question. A design made for one-time only use commissioned by the White House was duplicated and used again by the White House, though with new occupants, four years later. Was it a derivative work? Homage? Fair use? Does the White House own the design, having commissioned it originally? All we have is a two-dimensional representation, and there is no definitive evidence since both were, you know, eaten. I’d say a copyright infringement claim would be futile, and petty. Here, you try to figure it out.
Meanwhile, food website A.V. Club covers Cakegate by describing using the same cake design as “like a studio just making the same superhero movie with the same name and hoping nobody will care.” Good analogy, dummies. Except that the two films are competing with each other, and the sale of the copy undermines the value of the original. Oh–and that first movie hasn’t been eaten.
Chastened by the celebrity baker’s complaint, the maker of Trump’s cake, D.C.’s Buttercream Bake Shop, felt it had to explain itself, tweeting,
“Excited to share the cake we got to make for one of last night’s inaugural balls. While we most love creating original designs, when we are asked to replicate someone else’s work we are thrilled when it is a masterpiece like this one. @duff_goldman originally created this for Obama’s inauguration 4 years ago and this years committee commissioned us to re-create it. Best part is all the profits are being donated to @humanrightscampaign, one of our favorite charities who we have loved working with over the years. Because basic human rights are something every man, woman and child~ straight, gay or the rainbow in between~ deserve”
Says above referenced silly website:
“It turns out that D.C.’s Buttercream Bake Shop was specifically hired to replicate Obama’s cake (which says some interesting things about how the Trump administration works)…”
Really? What does it say? If President Hillary had said, “I want a cake just like my hero, Barack Obama’s,” would that say anything? Would anyone be writing about this? The request is benign and innocent in all respects. If there is some kind of cake-baker’s courtesy that is expected, then it was up to the bakers to speak up, and say, “I’d have to get permission for that.” There is nothing unethical about asking a baker to duplicate a cake design that you like.
As to the donation, that’s nice. Oh, but it’s really a political anti-Trump shot, says A.V.Club:
“Rather than trying to avoid politics, they casually explain that all of the profits from the job are being donated to the Human Rights Campaign—an LGBT advocacy group. It may not be a flashy protest, but it’s brilliant nonetheless.”
How is that a protest? Oh—right—the narrative. That false narrative that Donald Trump is anti-LGBT, which was one of the lies used to scare off Inauguration performers like Jennifer Holliday. Donald Trump was a supporter of same-sex marriage long before either Obama or Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump has stated unequivocally that he regards the right of gays and lesbians to marry as settled.
Thanks to dishonest, biased or sloppy reporting like this—and gay public figures like Rachel Maddow suggesting that Trump might “put her in a camp,” I bet most gay Americans really think Trump is homophobic and biased against the LGBT community.
I don’t know if they deserve good advice, but the mainstream news media should be told that if they find fault with everything Trump does, no matter how trivial, nobody will pay attention when they find something really worth criticizing.
92 thoughts on “Inauguration Cake Ethics (No, I Can’t Believe I Wrote That Either)”
So cake is art now?
You win the Kewpie doll. I deliberately didn’t go there, confident that it would be gotten to…
Well, it’s only barely a cheap shot, I can see the arguments that *this particular* cake IS art…
But still. It’s worth the spin-off discussion.
A custom-made cake is art; a standard one isn’t. People have the right to go into a store and get standard products that are sold to the public without facing discrimination; this is settled law. People don’t have the right to force other to produce customized art for them. A standard wedding cake that is sold to everyone must be sold to gay couples as well as straight couples, but they’re not entitled to make a baker to put a rainbow flag on it.
This isn’t that hard.
Didn’t even have to cast that line far…
Wait wait…. Really? You’ll force them to bake a generic No Name cake, ice it and put a man and woman plastic thingy on top of it (Because hackery aside, be honest: That’s going to be the default, generic no name option.) And little additions like a rainbow flag or “Love Wins Fag” are the bridge too far between generic service and art.
God DAMN but your logic is pretzelly.
I’m describing the law, HT, and there’s nothing pretzels about it. You have the right to be served the same product as anyone else when you go to a public place of business. You have no right to anything extra or beyond the norm. Christians have the right to be served in Muslim delis; they don’t have the right to be served pork there.
Really? You’re describing the law? Please cite the law. Because I think you’re making some kind of twisted head-cannon law, and I’d love to see you squirm to back that up.
OSEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
OOO(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
OOO)(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
OOO)(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
As I’ve explained before, the Civil Rights Act does not cover orientation, but it certainly would make sense to extend its protections in this way. “Full and equal enjoyment” means if you provide a service for a white person, you have to provide the same service for a black person. I don’t see why it’s “pretzel logic” to extend the same idea to equal treatment between gays and straights.
You’ve made my point.
“As I’ve explained before, the Civil Rights Act does not cover orientation, but it certainly would make sense to extend its protections in this way.”
The law is an ass, Chris, there are millions of things in it that doesn’t make sense, from restrictions to the number of dildos you can own in Texas (real law, and really… How many dildos do you need?) to contradictions to logical failings. In the absence of ACTUAL laws, and ACTUAL protections, you’re assertions amount to hopes and dreams not reflected in reality. You don’t get to say “Under the law” because the law doesn’t ACTUALLY say what you think it should.
I think because there’s a subtle realization in here somewhere that if he sets the bar much higher for what gets the protection of art and what is merely low brow produce, he’d have to include the President’s cake under “low brow produce”…
I just want to get him to say that a spiteful Christian baker could put the plastic man and woman thingy on top of the cake because that’s the generic floor model. We all know that isn’t actually true though… This ‘law’ isn’t about protecting generic services, it’s about protecting people’s special feelings. Even an admission of reality, I’d accept as a victory, but I don’t think I’ll get it. These are the lies that liberals tell themselves, and they hold on to their fig leaves like the loss of them would mean death.
I just want to get him to say that a spiteful Christian baker could put the plastic man and woman thingy on top of the cake because that’s the generic floor model.
Yeah, I think they could.
And isn’t that reasonable? How do you think the mewling masses would respond to that if the headline at MSNBC was:
“Christian Baker FORCES Gay Couple to Have Man and Woman Decoration on Cake”
The “no name” cake will probably be 70% cheaper than the “wedding cake”….
Do I get any credit for not making any cake jokes? I had so many of them…
Not only credit, but gratitude.
Donald Trump was a supporter of same-sex marriage long before either Obama or Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump has stated unequivocally that he regards the right of gays and lesbians to marry as settled.
I must have missed this. During the campaign he pledged to appoint justices who would overturn Obergefell, so referring to that case as “settled” is a massive flip-flop. And of course he chose an extremely anti-gay VP.
I don’t think Trump cares either way about gay rights, but the decisions he’s made so far have put those rights in danger, and I’m not confident he won’t keep doing so as president.
That said, if the Bake Shop donated the profits to the Human Rights Campaign as some sort of “fuck you” to Trump, I would call that misleading and therefore unethical of them.
Trump talked about overturning Roe v. Wade, and right after the election, said that he regarded Obergefell as settled law. So what if it’s a massive flip-flop? Every politician now supporting gay marriage flip-flopped. As usual with Trump, when or if he flipped is impossible to tell. In 2013, he said he was “evolving” on the issue. He tweeted against the decision, but during the campaign all he would say is that he’s “for traditional marriage,” which is a dodge.
Yes, Pence is an anti-gay bigot, but the VP has no power over the matter at all. I’d say gays would want to make sure Trump stays in office.
He apparently said the decision was bad because it should have been a state’s rights thing… if you trust the media reporting. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/donald-trump-iowa-caucuses-marriage-218471
The horror. The absolute horror…. A politician correctly stating that any policy that involves items not specifically addressed by the constitution is up to the states to decide. I’m literally shaking right now, guys.
Well, equal treatment and due process are mentioned in the Constitution…
Oooh. Teachable moment.
First off: Due process isn’t in contention here. Even mentioning it shows your ignorance.
Second: This is the text of the Equal Protection clause:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws (emphasis added).”
Believe it or not, a baker is not an agent of the state, and the state remaining silent on an issue is not discrimination.
Read. This comment thread was about gay marriage as a states’ rights issue, not wedding cakes or bakeries. Due process was absolutely in contention in Obergefell, which is the case we were discussing.
You keep doing this; condescending to me when you don’t even know what you’re talking about. It’s getting tiresome.
So…. Just to be clear, I’ll agree that because the states give so many legal benefits to marriage, disallowing gay marriage as a legal engagement was bending if not outright breaking the Equal Protection clause…
But… This topic is about cake, and you seem to be taking issue on how I’m trying to lump your gay marriage logic in with the wedding cake logic. I have to ask… Are you saying that the wedding cakes are a states rights issue? Because if you are, I’m sorry, and you’re right. But I don’t think you are, I think you think that this is a matter of national law, and if you are, then I’d LOVE to hear your thoughts on how the constitution applies.
The post headline had me hoping that we were going to be treated to a ridiculous brouhaha involving someone who ordered a cake for the inauguration from some bakery that didn’t want to provide a ‘pro-Trump’ cake. I was salivating in anticipation of horrible, breathless local news coverage, and some hastily slapped together ‘rights’ organization suing everyone in sight. Ah well…
I still say the whole way their camp goes about stuff is weird. Just downright strange. WHY would you want to order a copy of the last Inaugural cake? And it’s weird to have done a pretty exact copy and then do the donation thing. All around weird.
He liked the cake design?
I’m with jack on this. Who knew that there was an inauguration cake? Who cares what the design of the cake is? Who cares if the design is the same as it was four years ago? Sheesh. He’s going to make enough mistakes, can’t we let this one go (even if indeed it is a mistake)?
It’s not a mistake though…. This is design.
This is what people haven’t wrapped their heads around yet: Trump is going to Troll you. Why would he order the exact same cake? Because he HOPED people would notice it and throw a fit over CAKE. It makes people look stupid and petty. There’s no reasonable way to throw a fit over cake, no one gave a shit about cake previous to this administration, but here the usual suspects are: frothing at the mouth, choking on their bile, ready to hold the Trump CAKE to accountability. This is why the media is going to lose; it doesn’t matter that some of the time… hell…. maybe even most of the time, they have a point… They’re blowing their credibility on cake designs.
There’s no reasonable way to throw a fit over cake, no one gave a shit about cake previous to this administration, but here the usual suspects are: frothing at the mouth, choking on their bile, ready to hold the Trump CAKE to accountability.
Examples? Most of the reaction I’ve seen has been laughter; that’s certainly the reaction of the AV Club article Jack linked to.
Well… I could link you the TeenVogue, Jezebel, Chicago Tribune, NBC and telegraph articles as a start, which were the first five results on Google, but that would be much more than two links and get held up in comment purgatory.
As an alternative, and a much faster one…. How about you quit being lazy and stupid and break out the Google Machine? Seriously: “Inaugural Cake”
“Usual suspects”? Whoever does he mean, George? What is he talking about? He must be fake news!
Man, you two are a pair.
Well… I could link you the TeenVogue, Jezebel, Chicago Tribune, NBC and telegraph articles as a start
No need; I just read them all. Other than Jezebel, which freaks out about everything, none of them match your description of “frothing at the mouth, choking on their bile,” and if that’s the tone you’re reading into them, you’re projecting.
I admittedly didn’t read every article on the first page of Google tex so graciously linked for me, but the ones I did read did not strike that tone either.
How about you quit being lazy and stupid and break out the Google Machine? Seriously: “Inaugural Cake”
Alternately, you could not assume I’m stupid, read and comprehend what I actually wrote, and have a fucking discussion rather than act like a tag-team duo of condescending assholes all the time. I had of course already read a bunch of articles about the cake; I said that in my comment, and I said what I thought the reaction was. If you disagreed, you could have defended HT’s interpretation of the reaction to the cake, but instead you both chose to completely miss the point of my comment while being insufferably smug about it.
“I had of course already read a bunch of articles about the cake; I said that in my comment, and I said what I thought the reaction was.
As a matter of fact you didn’t say that.
You said “most of what I’ve seen”. A deliciously ambiguous toss away comment heavy on connotation, light on denotation, regarding a notion about “already reading a bunch of articles”…
So you could have asked if I had read the same articles you had, or better yet, written an actual defense of HT’s comment that people were “frothing at the mouth, choking on their bile,” instead of linking to a Google page with a bunch of articles that don’t meet that description at all.
But no, you a) assumed I hadn’t even Googled the subject, and then b) linked to the first page of Google, which does not back up HT’s argument at all.
Rules of Internet Engagement #354B: “If you can’t win on the arguments, get inextricably hung up on word choice.”
This didn’t even need to be an argument, but if there was one, it was entirely about your “word choice.” Here was where this started:
HT: There’s no reasonable way to throw a fit over cake, no one gave a shit about cake previous to this administration, but here the usual suspects are: frothing at the mouth, choking on their bile, ready to hold the Trump CAKE to accountability.
Me: Examples? Most of the reaction I’ve seen has been laughter; that’s certainly the reaction of the AV Club article Jack linked to.
I consider that a request, not an argument; I didn’t say no one had behaved this way, I said I hadn’t seen it! And if you insisted on making it an argument, literally all you had to do was show me one example of someone behaving this way and you would have “won.” I would have accepted the Jezebel article as an example of this type of reaction. Instead, you behaved like an asshole and mentioned several sources that can in no way be characterized by the hyperbole you used.
HT, have you ever heard of Layne’s law?
Thing is, definitions DO matter. If it’s a substantive component of an argument, people HAVE to agree on meanings. If it’s a side issue, like in this one, then yes, Layne’s Law applies.
It’s a cheap debate derailment technique no doubt. Until it matters.
“frothing at the mouth, choking on their bile”
I would assume Humble characterized it this way based on a reasonable assumption of proportion.
Reacting like this, say, to accidentally bombing a foreign hospital, would probably warrant HT saying “man, they sure were tame in their response”. Reacting, AT ALL, to a cake, is probably why HT used such strong descriptors.
Proportion is key here. They’re making ado over cake.
Of course I meant literal frothing, don’t you know that there isn’t such a thing as hyperbole anymore? It got murdered along with sarcasm, satire and comedy.
You’re right, there’s no such thing as using hyperbole wrongly or stupidly. I’ll remember that next time you get on to someone for calling Trump Hitler.
Mein ewiger Kampf.
Never thought of that, HT. Eye opening. Thank you!
If people go into full outrage mode every time Trump does anything, this is going to be a LONG and EXHAUSTING four or eight years. I’m hopinh people ‘get’ it earlier.
I wonder if full outrage mode for 4 years is planned?
I don’t know. I think that if the media and Democrats continue to piss themselves over increasingly petty things for 4 years, if they continue to haemorrhage credibility like they have been that these are things that COULD get Trump re-elected. At the very least, no one will believe them when they report on something serious.
Is that just Trump being Trump and the media being the media? Design or coincidence… The outcome looks the same.
By the way, I meant literal pissing, and literal bleeding. Obviously.
I understood that that was precisely what you meant.
You know, creatures on the verge of existential crises tend to overreact in last ditch “all you’ve got” play to get back on top.
Time will tell. If my hunch is true that they feel like they are in a existential crises, I wonder why they feel this way?
The electorate IS blue-ing: education and pop culture are making sure of that. Time IS on their side. Why the panic? Do their forecasters see something in the electorate that I don’t? That maybe millennials and the next gen have a good chance of seeing through their crap and making a massive surge to the middle and near right?
I think that time moves the goalposts on us a little bit, and I think that the crisis they face is that they’ve run out of material disenfranchisement.
You look at the previous human rights causes: Emancipation, Woman’s Suffrage, Gay Rights… Giant swathes of people disenfranchised by law.
The new movements? Transsexual bathrooms? Pronouns? Not all Muslims are Terrorists (even if some are)? Ever smaller minutiae, and minutiae that they’re either making progress at or is facially insane and will be discarded.
And then what do they have? Solid fiscal policy? Excuse me…. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH. I needed that. Ahem.
Their existential crisis is the soul searching of a movement that doesn’t know why it exists, and is trying to find relevancy.
Just wondering, Jack, would you and your readers consider THIS a trivial matter?
Trump’s Laugh Track is Tricking America
View at Medium.com
Wait a minute, he had supporters come and cheer him on? That bastard! Give me a break….
Yes. Anyone who gives a speech who doesn’t have someone or many someones serving that purpose is an idiot or an amateur. Audiences of all kinds need laughers and clappers, or the audience itself will not enjoy the performance as much. This is a perfect example of what we will see a lot of Trump criticized for practices that are standard in the field…in every field. You think all those “spontaneous” applause outbursts in Obama State of the Union messages are left to chance? Or more accurately, does the author of the Medium piece?
I might write about this—thanks. Good topic.
I imagine she doesn’t know. And, in fact, I forgot. However, the State of the Union address is one thing, while this is a horse of a different color.
Yesterday I declared my honeymoon with Trump was over!
If she doesn’t know that someone who gives a speech may bring along supporters, that calls into question her qualifications as a so-called author and comedian. I wonder if she invites any of her friends to her performances who presumably will encourage her by laughing and/or clapping? If so, what a fraud! Ridiculous….
If that article, which frankly was nonsense from start to finish, caused you to declare your honeymoon with Trump over, then you never really wanted one in the first place.
Oh, but I did want a honeymoon. Really, I did. So, you, Jack, others here, and now myself thanks to Jack’s reminding me, all agree that this is commonplace. Except that… is this technique widely known by the general populace? In particular, Trump’s core base?
Finally, look at the cabinet appointments he’s made. If that doesn’t ring alarm bells, well then you’re either deaf or very optimistic. Sorry, I lost my optimism for Trump. I’m heading back into the fray.
The #1 failure of the Obama departments and agencies was incompetent management and lack of accountability. Generals and CEO’s are a wonderful way to address that. Perry and Carson, two non-CEOs and Generals, are horrible. If Sessions just enforces the law in a colorblind fashion, and he will, he’ll be infinitely better than Lynch and Holder. The rest: the EPA has to be reigned back, and does Education.
As the whole concept of a Presidential honeymoon is to give the incumbent the privilege of a month or two without harsh criticism or opposition, ending it after one day means there was never a commitment to a honeymoon at all.
Did you know William Saroyan left his wife on their honeymoon, and divorced her? He learned that she 1) was Jewish and 2) wasn’t a virgin. (He married her again later.)
Uh, no, I didn’t know that. See, doesn’t that make a point?
Go back in time here and you will see that in the beginning I was mostly in support of Trump. I stopped my support when he advocated a return to torture. From that time on I remained noncommittal. (If I’m wrong on this, feel free to correct me).
Something strange here. Jack, you were vehemently against Trump for a long time leading right up to the election. Now you’ve committed to a honeymoon. Are you committed for the full 100 days? If not, when does your committment end? And why would you end it?
I ended mine because I read George Orwell’s 1984 is here once again. Only bigger and better and flashier.
You have been more optimistic than I was, FM, and I salute you for that. The major benefits of Trump have nothing to do with him.
If an audience needs a laugher or clapper to enjoy the performance, then the performance probably isn’t that great. (And is a speech to the CIA really a “performance?”
I’m surprised to see you of all people defending this type of deceit under the rationalization “Everyone does it.” (And I’m not sure everyone does do it, at least in a venue like this. Trying to make it look like the CIA is laughing along with you after you’ve spent a year attacking them is Goebbels territory.)
“If an audience needs a laugher or clapper to enjoy the performance, then the performance probably isn’t that great. (And is a speech to the CIA really a “performance?”
This isn’t “everybody does it,” Chris. This is “this is how it’s done; it’s the only way to do it; and anyone in the business knows it.”
The criticism, however, is “It only bothers me when Trump does it.” Like so much else/
I’m a stage director and a performer. Your comment is just plain ignorance talking. That’s all it is. I started learning what makes a receptive audience or a dead one when I was 14.
Do you hire people to clap and laugh during your productions? I have never heard of that. My only real acting experience is from elementary through high school, and I can tell you we never did that. Is that seriously standard?
I know they have cues for the audience to applaud and laugh during television shows filmed for a live audience, but that kind of artifice seems pretty well-accepted, and everyone knows it happens. I did not know that politicians hire people to laugh and applaud for them during speeches, and neither did fattymoon; do you have evidence that this is common?
This of course doesn’t even touch the unethical content of the speech.
Hire them? I don’t have to hire them. I did it for my own productions. You think mediocre shows on Broadway get standing ovations because they are wonderful? Every production I know of tries to get friendly, easily pleased, partisan audiences in to opening night and when the press comes. In comedies, having people who laugh easily is life or death.
But whether they are hired or volunteers, or just recruits makes no difference ethically. Nobody can make someone like a show, or a speech, but the perception that the crowd you are in likes it has a very strong influence—and there’s nothing the matter with that. All speeches and performance are about audience psychology, perception and to some extent, manipulation. All.
Every production I know of tries to get friendly, easily pleased, partisan audiences in to opening night and when the press comes.
That’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about audience plants. There is of course a difference.
I’m also curious about your feelings about the content of the speech. Was it ethical for Trump to use this type of event, which is usually far more somber and reflective, to boast (dishonestly) about the crowd size of his inauguration, make comments about who in the room voted for him, and make jokes about going back to Iraq and taking their oil?
That’s exactly what they are called: audience plants.
The speech? Trump is an irresponsible speaker. I think almost all of his speeches, or whatever they are, are unethical. The exception is when a speech is OK. The Inauguration speech was one of his best…not unethical, not too incoherent. Yes, the CIA speech was terrible.
I have never heard a director admit to planting audience members before. I will have to consult my theater friends about this.
Their response will inform me of their competence. A responsive audience improves the show and the audience’s true enjoyment of it. And that, in theater ethics, is the prime directive. Complaining about artifice in the theater is hypocrisy or naivete.
It seems to be the goal of a show would be to get the audience to respond without having to plant them.
But anyway, this wasn’t the theater; it was a speech given by the president in front of the CIA memorial wall. The agents assembled would have applauded regardless. Planting people to laugh at unfunny jokes–especially at what is supposed to be a more subdued affair–is unethical.
Well this does it. I’m with the Democrats, Trump is an illegitimate president. I can’t wait for every other mundane detail to be documented about how Trump is unfit to serve.
Did you know he’s copying President Obama by taking the title “President”?
What a fraud.
What! How dare he do that. Think of the children! If we can save one life by stopping him from taking that title, it’s worth it!
And we wonder why Trump seems petty when he disputes numbers of people attending the inauguration.
I was taught to ignore petty remarks which is what we should expect a President to do. However we should also expect a fair and unbiased press and an informed electorate. When you lack the latter it create the former.
It may very well be necessary to wrestle in the mud with the press so they understand pettiness comes with a cost.
I think that while we have adjusted to the concept of “fake news” we need to further adjust to the concept of “non-news.” This cake story is non-news. It has no substance, just as the cake presumably has no nutritional value. Having been called out for fake news, many will be trumping up (HAHAHAHA) non-news articles. The 24/7 news cycle and social media are destroying us much more than any election could.
How is the emphasizing of “non-news” with the intent to discredit someone not just a form of propaganda and therefore a sub-category of “fake news”?
Fake news does a lot more damage than non-news. It presents lies and facts, whereas non-news presents actual facts, but facts of no substance or consequence.
Do you disagree that the elevation of non-news to importance with intent to discredit someone is a form of propaganda?
Of course. But I was trying to make the point that we now must be vigilant about both fake news and non-news. Yes, it’s propaganda, just as fake news is. Trust no one.
When I said “of course,” I meant of course non-news is propaganda.
My IP husband told me that it doesn’t violate any laws to copy a cake design.
UGH! Why didn’t I ask you! I keep forgetting about your IP spouse, and he’s a stickler.
I thought not, but the law reads vague to me. Of course, its a layered issue.
I thought you said no cake jokes…
Ugh… That was so lame I tiered up.
So the joke literally couldn’t walk?
Your cake jokes don’t hold a candle to mine.
anything I have to add would just be icing on the cake…
You can copy a cake and eat it too.
I can always tell when I really agree with one of your posts, because I go to all the effort of signing into Twitter just so I can share your thoughts with another 346 people. Today I signed in. Hopefully some of the journalists are checking out my feed.
You should do a wrap of the year covering the litany of petty anti-Trump freak outs.