By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The recent instance of President Trump calling a female reporter “quiet, piggy” has gained significant traction online, despite occurring days prior and receiving limited initial media coverage. This incident, combined with Trump’s dismissal of a question about Jamal Khashoggi, has sparked outrage, particularly due to the double standard of attacking female journalists for asking probing questions. The lack of immediate defense from the press gaggle and the White House’s defense of the comment further emphasized the president’s pattern of hostility towards the press. Interestingly, the story gained prominence through online platforms and social media, potentially signaling a shift in how news cycles are shaped and how resistance can be mobilized.
Read the original article here
‘Unforgivable’: Trump’s ‘piggy’ insult is stoking more outrage than usual, the initial reaction, or perhaps a lack thereof, raises some interesting points. It’s difficult to miss the sentiment that this particular insult, “Quiet, piggy,” has resonated in a distinct way. It wasn’t the usual Trumpian bluster, the deflection to unrelated issues, or the attempts at charm.
Instead, the incident is characterized as a stark, unvarnished display of contempt. The argument here is that the insult revealed a raw, unfiltered disdain, a moment of unadulterated negativity that seemingly bypassed the usual political performance. The core point is that this wasn’t a politician speaking, it was something else entirely. The impact is seen as more potent because it was supposedly devoid of any attempt at a persona.
The observation that this could be one of Trump’s most “pure” moments, a glimpse into his true nature, is noteworthy. There’s a suggestion that this behavior aligns with previous controversies, specifically, his association with figures like Epstein. It is believed that this seemingly “mask-off” moment of venom and hate, totally undiluted, has made a deeper impact than his usual rhetorical tactics.
There’s the assertion that this level of verbal abuse would be grounds for immediate termination in a professional setting. The contrast between this standard and the perceived impunity granted to Trump is highlighted. Many find it appalling, given his position. The implication is that the gravity of the insult is exacerbated by the context of his high office.
The perceived disparity in how such comments are received based on political affiliation is another major theme here. The suggestion is that if a similar statement had been made by a Democrat, the media and public reaction would be far more intense. The argument is made that Trump’s supporters may be less critical of him.
Trump’s history of making disparaging remarks about women is used as context. The argument is that this behavior is not new, but that the recent comment is particularly disturbing. The suggestion that it’s not stoking nearly enough outrage, that the response should be more vehement, is evident throughout. There’s a direct plea for a stronger condemnation and more meaningful consequences for his actions.
The comments also reflect a profound sense of disappointment and frustration. The comparison to a schoolyard bully, the assertion that the United States is being led by such a figure, and the disappointment that such behavior is normalized underscore the feeling that the bar for acceptable conduct has been lowered. There is a call for a stronger response from reporters and a refusal to accept the status quo.
The discussion emphasizes the impact of Trump’s behavior on the younger generations, especially girls. The concern is that his actions normalize misogyny and create a negative environment for women. This element contributes to the argument that the outrage is not only appropriate but also essential to protect vulnerable populations.
The general sentiment expressed is that the insult reflects Trump’s true character and is a symptom of his broader pattern of disrespect and abuse. There is a sense of outrage, disgust, and frustration towards the President. The impact is that this sentiment has been brewing for a long time. The perception is that Trump continues to evade consequences for behavior that would be considered unacceptable for others.
The discussion also raises concerns about the double standards in the political arena. The idea that if anyone else said “piggy,” their career would be over, yet Trump seems untouchable, is an important idea. The implication is that the media and public are, perhaps, desensitized to his behavior. The comments further state that this insult is just the latest example of his toxic character.
The remarks also reference the potential long-term effects of Trump’s behavior, particularly on young people. The idea that girls and women will “socially suffer” as a result of the normalization of his conduct is especially concerning. This again is indicative of how deep-seated the concerns about this incident are.
The overall tone is one of deep dissatisfaction. The assertion that this incident may be included in the historical record as a defining moment in Trump’s career shows how seriously it is being received. There’s a call for accountability and a desire for more people to speak out against it, and express their outrage.