Barron Trump Thought Beheaded Image was his Dad

originally posted by: Grimpachi
I don't know why I should believe the unnamed source that claims Trumps kid cried over it, but even if I did then, so what.

Is the billionaire housewife unable to do some parenting so he can get over it?

And yet college students need play dough and safe spaces when they see 'TRUMP' written in chalk on a sidewalk. The world has gone crazy.

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Boadicea

Trump family sources tell us Barron was in front of the TV watching a show when the news came on and he saw the bloody, beheaded image. We're told he panicked and screamed, "Mommy, Mommy!"

I don't believe that for one second! Has Barron never played a video game, seem a gory movie or attended a Halloween Haunted House?

I agree that what Kathy Griffin did was in bad taste, but, Melainia's hyperboleic reaction is ridiculous!

I would imagine it is quite different seeing a likeness of a family members severed bloody head on national TV than shooting zombies in a video game.

But keep on apologizing....

Doesn't matter. I don't believe that the kid thought it was real, any more than he thinks his video games are real. But you just keep up that moral outrage. Hypocrisy fits you like a glove!

Considering the amount of Secret Service protection assigned to his family, I have to assume Barron understands his dad is a target for assassination. I don't think you can compare his mindset to an 'ordinary' 11 year old's mindset.

Effigies are supposed to be 'rough likenesses.' This one was too real for a kid, even if it wasn't for you.

a reply to: Khaleesi

I wouldn't know. I feel bad for your college experience, but what does that have to do with the thread?

a reply to: Boadicea

I knew that ATS had some hard-line progressives but I never imagined that anyone could be so cold-hearted and cruel as the ones posting in this thread.

Like you, I've scrolled past these images. I can't imagine anyone NOT screaming when viewing it whether they are a child or an adult.

The deflections about it being in "bad taste" are the things that terrify me. Who calls that sort of behavior "bad taste'? Someone who wishes they had thought of it first perhaps or perhaps thought of it but didn't have the stage to deploy it?

To me it says that the progressives are in dire need of mental health counseling. Anyone who thinks that kind of behavior is normal is in serious denial of what mental health is. I wonder what they will do when their children begin copying this nutjob and making such memes for the fun of it? Same for the tv channel that showed it---get them to an asylum quickly because they are obviously deranged. Apparently, crazy breeds crazy and we're all in danger unless these people are put where they can't infect the public.

I'm most amazed that they are accusing you of "playing on people's emotions'!!! Please pass the duct tape--my head is about to explode.

a reply to: MotherMayEye


So? Do we say that we're only going to protect free speech when it isn't too realistic?

a reply to: Boadicea

So how were you "proven wrong" about everyone denouncing it in this thread? Your words not mine.

a reply to: diggindirt

To me it says that the progressives are in dire need of mental health counseling. Anyone who thinks that kind of behavior is normal is in serious denial of what mental health is. I wonder what they will do when their children begin copying this nutjob and making such memes for the fun of it?

Where have you been for the past 8 years?

a reply to: Jansy

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: essentialtremors

Well at leastbthey aren't laughing at/downplaying an 11y/o's alleged trauma, like so many in this thread.

Nobody's laughing at a child's trauma. We're calling out the blatant use of emotion to silence offensive free speech. We're calling out the right's hypocrisy when it comes to expressing concern for the feelings of Barron Trump compared to the right's ignored feelings of concern for the impact on the Obama children.

ETA: And no, I don't believe for one second, that Barron Trump thought it was really his dad's head. Not for one second!

Your ETA...probably correct. But how about this? He sees it on TV (it was uncensored at one point) and is shocked. "Mommy, they just showed some woman holding Daddy's severed head all bloody. Why would she do that and why would they put it on TV? Do they want Daddy dead? Why do they hate Daddy so much?".

Maybe you can see that and then I would ask you. How would you feel if the same was done about you or your wife to your 10 year old? I know it would make me go ballistic. You don't hurt or scare that young a person with something like this on TV. You don't make it look (initially) that this is how people feel about your Father. And if you think I'm over-reacting...why did they later censor the image and fire Griffin?

It is just wrong.

a reply to: diggindirt

Two words: "unnamed sources".

You guys are letting it slide this time but any other time you'd be calling it fake news based on that fact alone. No one is saying Barron deserves to cry or be psychologically scarred, we're just questioning the validity of these unnamed sources much like you guys do in any other thread that includes them.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: MotherMayEye


So? Do we say that we're only going to protect free speech when it isn't too realistic?

No, I think Kathy Griffin was within the limits of free speech (and, yes, there are some limits), but I am not surprised at the backlash she is getting and I don't disbelieve this story about Barron thinking it was real. I can see how he may have thought that.

IOW, I don't think Kathy Griffin should be jailed or deprived of any rights for this. CNN firing her? That's fine. People on the left & right (and in the center) tuning out/boycotting her. That's fine, too.

a reply to: Boadicea

I agree that is was a tasteless and immature act committed by Kathy Griffin.

Oh wow. I cannot even look at that gruesome image. I just scroll past every time someone re-posts it. I am ashamed to say that I didn't even think about the possibility that Barron would see it. I cannot even imagine the horror and trauma he is probably still feeling over this -- and will continue to feel.

The irony is there are real men, women and *children* who actually have been beheaded by "moderate rebels" armed, funded and supported by the USA. In fact, many children have witnessed with their own eyes countless horrors committed against their family, friends and communities in some parts of the world. And I implore those who are offended and feel animosity via *manufactured anger* towards Kathy Griffin's actions—that demonstrated a fictitious event—to muster up the same empathy for those real-life innocent victims being slaughtered across the globe directly and indirectly by their own government's foriegn policy initiatives.

In saying that:

I hope and pray that this is a powerful lesson for all who would lose sight of basic decency and civility for cheap political brownie points.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Khaleesi

I wouldn't know. I feel bad for your college experience, but what does that have to do with the thread?

Comparing an 11 year old's reaction to this is quite relevant IMO. My college experience was 30 years ago. We weren't so fragile to words in chalk then. This image though ... I didn't care for gory films then. I can't imagine what my 11 year old self would have thought.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: MotherMayEye


So? Do we say that we're only going to protect free speech when it isn't too realistic?

No, I think Kathy Griffin was within the limits of free speech (and, yes, there are some limits), but I am not surprised at the backlash she is getting and I don't disbelieve this story about Barron thinking it was real. I can see how he may have thought that.

OK...free speech. I want to put a 30 second commercial on TV during prime time of an aborted but not quite dead fetus. Objections? No warning...no censoring. Are you good with that? Is it OK for your 10 year old to have that slapped in their face out of the blue?

PS: I'm pro-choice...FYI

Let this be a lesson to us all why one doesn't do things like this.


That kid could have been traumatized by this stupid ladies stunt.

originally posted by: Willtell
Let this be a lesson to us all why one doesn't do things like this.


That kid could have been traumatized by this stupid ladies stunt.

The problem is...some don't care. Hell...I'll bet you there are those that believe he deserved it, being an evil Trump and all

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: MotherMayEye


So? Do we say that we're only going to protect free speech when it isn't too realistic?

No, I think Kathy Griffin was within the limits of free speech (and, yes, there are some limits), but I am not surprised at the backlash she is getting and I don't disbelieve this story about Barron thinking it was real. I can see how he may have thought that.

OK...free speech. I want to put a 30 second commercial on TV during prime time of an aborted but not quite dead fetus. Objections? No warning...no censoring. Are you good with that? Is it OK for your 10 year old to have that slapped in their face out of the blue?

PS: I'm pro-choice...FYI

I am also pro-choice and I fail to see your point. If a network wants to sell you airtime for that, then that network is committing suicide.

ETA: And, BTW, the FCC does regulate what can be shown on television. Perhaps someone should file a complaint with them:

Federal law prohibits obscene, indecent and profane content from being broadcast on the radio or TV. That may seem clear enough, but determining what obscene, indecent and profane mean can be difficult, depending on who you talk to.

In the Supreme Court's 1964 landmark case on obscenity and pornography, Justice Stewart Potter famously wrote: "I know it when I see it." That case still influences FCC rules today, and complaints from the public about broadcasting objectionable content drive the enforcement of those rules.

In other words, if you "know it when you see it" and find it objectionable, you can tell the FCC and ask us to check into it.

Link

a reply to: thetruth2017

Were any of these actions carried out by a national news channel's on air personality? Was there any open effort to marginalize the reaction of Obama's children to these acts? No? I see...

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

I don't think anyone forced anyone to put this picture on TV. Whatever channel Barron was supposedly watching should be the one blamed no? They're the ones who put such disturbing imagery on a channel that children watch.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: Willtell
Let this be a lesson to us all why one doesn't do things like this.


That kid could have been traumatized by this stupid ladies stunt.

The problem is...some don't care. Hell...I'll bet you there are those that believe he deserved it, being an evil Trump and all

Trump might deserve some kind of punishment but that’s up to God or the law if he is ever convicted of a crime.