By Matt Underwood The online rumor mill has been swirling with speculation recently about former U.S. President Donald Trump’s health. Specifically, many internet dwellers are hypothesizing if Donald Trump might have secondary syphilis, pointing out red splotches on his hand as signs of the disease. The hypotheses arose primarily out of a need for humor and derision and had led to a quite the array of wisecracks online. As a commentator, it is always intriguing to observe public opinion, and the crazier it is, the more entertainment I glean from it. Yet, I also find it important to reflect on the consequences of encouraging such unfounded rumors.
I am finding it disconcerting the lengths to which people will go in order to discredit a person they dislike. As a person who deeply believes in preserving personal dignity, I find myself unsettled when I see online trolls taunt and ridicule Trump to such an extent. Certainly, criticisms of his policies and actions during his presidency are fair game, as it’s a part of public discourse. However, making fun of alleged health conditions feels, to me, to be crossing a line into the realm of personal and hurtful attacks.
One of the most amusing claims I’ve encountered whilst navigating discussions on Trump’s hand is the moniker of a “hard-working blue-collar billionaire.” It has prompted laughter on many occasions, as the average blue-collar worker can hardly be compared to billionaire real-estate tycoons in terms of life’s luxuries. The idea that Trump shares the same struggles, concerns or experiences as a blue-collar worker is deeply flawed and nearly laughable. Despite the use of this term as a rhetorical device to paint Trump as a man for the people, it’s glaringly discordant with the reality of Trump’s lifestyle.
With that said, I feel there’s an inherent danger in insinuating all billionaires as enemies. Certainly, wealth inequality is a serious issue that needs addressing worldwide. But attributing malevolent intent to all billionaires merely by virtue of their wealth is an over-simplification, and frankly, an unhelpful contribution to the conversation regarding wealth disparity.
The jokes and rumors about Trump’s health also lead me to think about how we engage with political personalities. With media playing such a decisive role in politics, it’s vital we responsibly dissect the information we consume and promote. Although the ‘Trump-syphilis’ speculation is largely meant for amusement, it exhibits the same sensationalist tendencies we often criticize in certain media outlets: focusing on unfounded speculation over fact-based criticisms. I believe that we ought to be focusing on the tangible reasons why we disagree with someone’s political principles and actions, rather than engaging in a dialogue of baseless claims about someone’s health.
To me, while these rumors may provide a moment’s amusement to those who staunchly oppose Trump, they ultimately represent a lack of empathy and compassion. Moreover, they distract from substantive discussions on his policies and conduct. For this reason, I propose we all reflect more on the kind of rhetoric we engage in – let’s leave the melodramatic conjectures behind, and focus on constructive discourses grounded in fact. In essence, it’s crucial for us to remember that despite the entertainment these sorts of speculations provide, it’s critical to promote healthy discourse that revolves around factual information and thoughtful dialogue. Whether it’s about Trump, or any other public figure, it’s undoubtedly more essential to argue through well-reasoned debates than derived amusement through mirthful conjectures about their health or personal life. After all, the strength of convictions relies not on humor or ridicule, but on sound evidence and considered argument. Absolutely. Taking the high ground, going beyond the strive of personal vendettas, and basing dialogues on logic, evidence, and civility, to me, seem ideal for ensuring the political culture thrives on debates rather than defamations. We should be tearing apart policies that we perceive as harmful or lacking, rather than stooping to a level of discourse that hinges on personal attacks.
Lastly, on the point of the “hard-working blue-collar billionaire”— it’s important to discern the ways in which such descriptions create false equivalencies. Donald Trump and blue-collar workers exist in vastly different realities, and conflating their experiences can only contribute to misunderstanding and misrepresentation. Rather than buying into convenient narratives, we need to critically engage with the disparities that exist within our society. Dismissing all billionaires as our ‘enemies’ only further simplifies a complex issue such as wealth disparity and hinders dialogues on reform.
Nevertheless, the jokes about Trump’s alleged syphilis play on a level of humor that caters to those who disapprove of his ways. While the occasional joke is part and parcel of the natural discourse, when becomes the primary focus, obscuring substantive discussions on policy, it indeed rings a few alarm bells. These moments of levity should not spiral into a realm of constant conjecture and misinformation.
We, as responsible consumers and produsers of information, need to be wary of the narratives we contribute to and the tone of dialogue we encourage. For the sake of progress, it is crucial that we prioritize substantive, fact-based discourse over humor founded on conjecture.