This turned up on my Facebook feed this morning.
Nice.
Among the dozens of immediately likes, “hearts” and LOL emogis, right at the top, was the name of a long-time dear friend, usually wise, kind, and rational, a religious woman who believes in the Golden Rule. But she is hopelessly Trump Deranged, so all of those qualities go AWOL when the President is the topic.
I thought a lot of the attacks on Michelle Obama from the Right were vicious and indefensible, but her conduct was being criticized on its own terms rather than simply consisting or contempt for having the bad taste to marry Barack. Michell also kicked the bees nest more than any previous First Lady and had more than her share of well-earned ridicule…
….but no First Lady has ever been savaged like Melania. (Rachel Jackson’s treatment by her husband’s opponents was the closest.)
If she were not a public figure, a public statement that Melania was a sex worker would be per se defamation. But she’s the President’s wife, and apparently even to good Christians when they are Trump Deranged, Melania is fair game, just as David Letterman (who is scum, in case you have forgotten) thought it appropriate to suggest on national television in 2009 that Sarah Palin’s 14-year-old daughter had sexual relations with Alex Rodriguez, the Yankee All-Star steroid cheat.
Please get well soon, my friend.
Ethics Alarms 
What?
“Melania is [considered to be] fair game, just as David Letterman (who is scum, in case you have forgotten) thought it appropriate to suggest on national television in 2009 that Sarah Palin’s 14-year-old daughter had sexual relations with Alex Rodriguez, the Yankee All-Star steroid cheat.”
If there is something more then a tenuous connection between that FB post about Melania and the Letterman quote, then you should make that clear. If there is not, as I suspect, then that comparison should have been omitted.
Okay, I’m a dumbass as has been pointed out (alleged?) here, but, most of the readers and commenters here are literate enough that an analogy from long in the past is unnecessary. The post can be dissected without that, if such dissection even is needed.
I have a dear relative who is attracted to any and everything negative about Trump so she can attract likes and angry faces. “This turned up on my Facebook feed” smacks of the same thing, but from the opposite direction. The approach seems to be, ‘Let’s see, did someone say something bad [good] about Trump or a family member, and how can I use that as a further example of TDS [how Trump is evil].
There is a concept that anger can be addictive, that it engages the same brain reaction as a number of addictive substances. This is where the supposed ‘duty to confront’ seems to create more problems than it solves. If the confrontation produces nothing more than anger, it seems to be counterproductive. Here, will the FB poster see this on Ethics Alarms and recognize their ethical failure? Doubtful. Would direct confrontation make any difference? Also doubtful.
On a routine basis, I see many posts and comments that I find disagreeable. I slide on by those, look for more thoughtful posts that help me overcome my tendency toward dumbassery, and fairly quickly conclude my allotted FB time of about 3 minutes per day.
As to that dear relative, I do a FB search periodically to see if there is something worthwhile about nieces, nephews, grandkids, and so on. But, turning off that ‘follow’ thing and ignoring superficial gratuitous posts has saved me from a lot of addictive anger.
“I slide on by those, look for more thoughtful posts that help me overcome my tendency toward dumbassery, and fairly quickly conclude my allotted FB time of about 3 minutes per day.”
FWIW, that’s three (3) minutes more than I’ve ever spent, there.
PWS
I don’t understand that you don’t understand. Letterman, who hated Palin, implied that her 14 year old was having sexual relations with a baseball player. The meme attacks Melania as a prostitute because she is married to someone whom the maker hates. Analogy: false sexual allegations against family members who have literally done nothing to justify it. Was that so hard?
Call Trump a con artist? Fine. Lazy, but goes with the territory. Call his wife a whore? Over the line.