Patronizing creep. “The lady who” ffs. Dude, the word is “woman” and you are not one.

Via Sex Matters, I learn that the IOC has a Portrayal Guideline [pdf] so I hasten to read it.

It is, of course, a sour joke.

The Introduction starts with:

Sport is one of the most powerful platforms for promoting gender equality and empowering women and girls, and sports coverage is very influential in shaping gender norms and stereotypes.

So…that’s why they insist that some men are women. Okaaaaaay…

The two weeks of Olympic coverage are a rare time when women’s sports and sportswomen – irrespective
of nation, race, religion, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status – are likely to make the headlines. But outside that period, both the quantity and quality of women’s sports coverage remain inconsistent and limited in comparison to that of men.
Sport has the power to shift how women in all their diversity are seen and how they see themselves.

And by “in all their diversity” we mean “including men.”

Women, like men, are not a homogenous group, nor are they solely defined by their gender identity. Indeed, women are as different from each other as they are from men. All individuals have multiple intersecting dimensions that shape their experiences of sport. Other social markers of difference such as race, class, ethnicity, religion, nationality, culture or sexual orientation (to list but a few) inform a person’s identity. Balanced portrayal practices should ensure that the diversity within and among different groups are both considered and reflected. After all, not all sportspeople look or sound the same, nor do they experience life exclusively in terms of their gender identity

Is this the Olympics, or the sociology department at Goldsmith’s? What on earth makes the IOC think we need a stupid confused patronizing lecture of this kind? “Women are more than just women yaknow” – gosh you don’t say.

There’s lots more. Not recommended.

Sex Matters zooms in on the problem:

Which is why the IOC’s flapping its hands and telling us they’ve always identified as female is so evasive and useless.

So let’s read that statement.

Every person has the right to practise sport without discrimination.

All athletes participating in the boxing tournament of the Olympic Games Paris 2024 comply with the competition’s eligibility and entry regulations, as well as all applicable medical regulations set by the Paris 2024 Boxing Unit (PBU) (please find all applicable rules here). As with previous Olympic boxing competitions, the gender and age of the athletes are based on their passport.

Well that’s not good enough. When there’s an issue, that’s obviously not good enough.

We have seen in reports misleading information about two female athletes competing at the Olympic Games Paris 2024. The two athletes have been competing in international boxing competitions for many years in the women’s category, including the Olympic Games Tokyo 2020, International Boxing Association (IBA) World Championships and IBA-sanctioned tournaments.

Many years? That’s silly. They’re young, so it can’t have been all that many. That’s just hand-wavey and imprecise, i.e. manipulative rhetoric. Less rhetoric, more precision, bros.

These two athletes were the victims of a sudden and arbitrary decision by the IBA. Towards the end of the IBA World Championships in 2023, they were suddenly disqualified without any due process.

Wait a second. Was it really arbitrary? Was it nothing at all to do with the fact that both of them in fact appear to be men?

According to the IBA minutes available on their website, this decision was initially taken solely by the IBA Secretary General and CEO. The IBA Board only ratified it afterwards and only subsequently requested that a procedure to follow in similar cases in the future be established and reflected in the IBA Regulations. The minutes also say that the IBA should “establish a clear procedure on gender testing”.

Could that possibly be because more and more men are invading and ruining women’s sports?

The current aggression against these two athletes is based entirely on this arbitrary decision, which was taken without any proper procedure – especially considering that these athletes had been competing in top-level competition for many years.

See above. Also, doing the wrong thing for many years doesn’t make the wrong thing the right thing.

Such an approach is contrary to good governance.

Eligibility rules should not be changed during ongoing competition, and any rule change must follow appropriate processes and should be based on scientific evidence.

It’s clearly far from ideal to do it during competition, but at the same time, it’s far from ideal to continue the injustice to women during competition.

The IOC is committed to protecting the human rights of all athletes participating in the Olympic Games as per the Olympic Charter, the IOC Code of Ethics and the IOC Strategic Framework on Human Rights. The IOC is saddened by the abuse that the two athletes are currently receiving.

But, apparently, entirely indifferent to the abuse the other two athletes have received.

Time magazine lets us know Taiwan is super mad at JK Rowling.

Local politicians and journalists are taking jabs at Rowling, some Harry Potter fans have vowed to boycott her products, and social media users have defended Lin Yu Ting, the 28-year-old Chinese Taipei women’s boxer who has found herself at the center of a raging debate about biology and sports.

As boxing events kicked off at the Olympics in Paris this week, the eligibility of Taiwan’s Lin as well as Algeria’s Imane Khelif has been questioned by critics claiming that they are men pretending to be women for competitive advantage. (Both have identified as women since birth, and both have competed and lost to women in international boxing events, including previous Olympics.)

This issue turns people’s brains to mush. Nobody identifies as anything “since birth” – infants don’t know from identify, and if they did they wouldn’t identify as women.

Among the most prominent voices crying unfair is Rowling, who achieved massive renown for her Harry Potter series but has in recent years become known for her outspokenness on transgender issues—a turn that has alienated both her fans and the franchise’s biggest stars. 

Not all her fans, you numskulls.

Taiwanese officials, media, and members of the public have emphasized that Lin is and has always been considered female. Others’ doubt, however, stems from a decision by the International Boxing Association (IBA) last year to disqualify her and Khelif from the World Championships, claiming that they failed an unspecified eligibility test that determined they have XY chromosomes (the pair typically associated with males).

The IBA, which is led by Russia, was stripped of its authority over Olympic boxing events because of long-standing concerns about integrity and governance, and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has repeatedly declared that Lin and Khelif are eligible to continue competing as women.

Yes, but when asked on what basis, the IOC says irritably “their passports.” Anyone who has watched yesterday’s match can see why that’s not really the last word on the matter.

Second man wins women’s boxing round.

Lin Yu-ting, one of the boxers at the centre of a gender row at the Olympics, won her opening bout in the women’s featherweight category by outpointing Sitora Turdibekova.

The participation of the Chinese Taipei fighter and Algeria’s Imane Khelif at these Games has invited intense scrutiny, with the pair disqualified from last year’s World Championships by the International Boxing Association (IBA) for failing to meet gender eligibility criteria.

…

Lin, the top seed in the women’s -57kg category, breezed into the quarter-finals with a unanimous decision win although Turdibekova proved a tough opponent and won one of the rounds on one of the scorecards.

Ultimately, the taller and rangier Lin recorded victory by scores of 29-28 and four of 30-27 to set up a last-eight clash against Bulgarian Svetlana Staneva, who beat Ireland’s Michaela Walsh.

Looking back at the end of the bout today, after the decision was announced Turdibekova made an effort to shake [hands with] both of Yu-Ting’s coaches, but avoided Yu-Ting, who, unlike Khelif, made no attempt to console her opponent. Turdibekova was tearful as she left the arena.

A reminder on why the IOC are subject to Oliver’s criticism: amidst ongoing riffs between the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the International Boxing Association (IBA) that might see boxing excluded from LA 2028, the IOC are in charge of this year’s boxing event, and believe allow athletes to compete per the gender on their passport. Many individual sports federations, like the IBA or World Athletics, now base their eligibility on whether athletes can pass a gender test, that examines their chromosomes and by virtue their testosterone levels.

In other words many sports federations actually verify which sex their athletes are, while the IOC just takes the athletes’ word for it. One’s gender [sex] on a passport is simply a matter of declaration; it’s not tested or verified or documented. You need a social security number (in the US) but your sex is just which box you tick.

Both imane Khelif and Lin Yu-Ting have failed these tests, so are disqualified from the IBA – neither [has] appealed this – but are eligible for the IOC’s criteria.

Because the IOC doesn’t have real criteria.

Trump was outraged to be expected to tell the truth.

Moments before former President Trump took the stage at the National Association of Black Journalists annual convention in Chicago on Wednesday, the organization’s president was called back to address an issue.

Why it matters: Trump did not want to be fact-checked live and was refusing to go on stage, NABJ president Ken Lemon told Axios.

• “[Trump’s team] said, ‘Well, can you not fact check? He’s not going to take the stage if you fact-check,'” Lemon said.

That’s so interesting. Why would he not want to be fact-checked? Silly question. Because he lies constantly, so he would look pretty ridiculous being interrupted every few words for a fact check.

The Q&A with the GOP presidential nominee was delayed more than an hour before he eventually joined a panel of Black journalists, including ABC News correspondent Rachel Scott, Fox News anchor Harris Faulkner and Semafor reporter Kadia Goba.

• At the time, President Trump blamed the delay on audio problems.
• Lemon told Axios, “There were audio problems, but they were resolved very quickly.”
• “The bigger problem was his threat not to take the stage when he had agreed to go on. He did not want to be fact-checked, but we could not let him on the stage without fact-checking,” Lemon said.

That would make a good title for an official biography – He Did Not Want to be Fact-checked.

The insults just keep rolling in.

Former president Donald Trump is facing criticism for recent comments made about the Jewish community in which he claimed a Jewish American who votes for a Democrat is “an absolute fool.”

The American Jewish Committee (AJC), a global Jewish advocacy group, condemned Trump’s comments. “At a time when antisemitism is at record levels, the statement by the former president is divisive and potentially dangerous,” the AJC told ABC News in a statement.

What did the insult comic say this time?

In a July 30 interview with New York radio host Sid Rosenberg on the radio station 77WABC, owned by Red Apple Media, Trump said that “any Jewish person that voted for her or him or whoever it’s going to be … should have their head examined,” referring to likely Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris.

Trump continued: “If you love Israel, or if you’re Jewish, because a lot of Jewish people do not like Israel, and they happen to be in New York, you know that. But if you are Jewish, regardless of Israel, if you’re Jewish, if you vote for a Democrat, you’re a fool, an absolute fool.”

Rosenberg then made derogatory comments about second gentleman Doug Emhoff, calling him “a crappy Jew” as Trump appeared to agree.

“Doug Emhoff, Mr. President, is Jewish,” Rosenberg said during the interview. “He’s Jewish like Bernie Sanders is Jewish. Are you kidding me?”

“Yeah,” Trump responded.

“He’s a crappy Jew,” Rosenberg continued.

“Yeah,” Trump again said.

“He’s a horrible Jew,” said Rosenberg.

Well Trump is definitely the right person to consult on that question.

Trump’s most recent comments follow his claim at a July 26 speaking event that Harris doesn’t like Jewish people, despite her being married to a Jewish man. “She doesn’t like Jewish people. She doesn’t like Israel. That’s the way it is, and that’s the way it’s always going to be. She’s not going to change,” he said at a conservative Christian event in Florida.

Talk about projection. Trump is the one who hates people, and Trump is conspicuously the one who will never ever ever change.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., the highest-ranking Jewish official in the U.S., slammed Trump for repeating what Schumer called an “old antisemitic trope” about the loyalties of Jewish voters.

“It’s been used for a very long time to drive Jews out of their homes, to paint them as untrustworthy to deny the basic dignity,” Schumer said in a July 31 speech.

Schumer continued: “Donald Trump then repeated the sick idea that if you’re a Jew, and if you happen to support Democrats, you should ‘have your head examined’ and that you’re a bunch of ‘fools.’ Sadly, we’ve been here before, but it must be said again: Donald Trump’s comments were reprehensible, dangerous, and prove that he is disturbingly at ease with antisemitic rhetoric.”

Which is unsurprising given all the other kinds of rhetoric he’s disturbingly at ease with.

Of course he was.

The official at the centre of the Olympic boxing gender row was one of Sir Keir Starmer’s best men at his wedding.

Mark Adams, the spokesman for the International Olympic Committee (IOC), has known the Prime Minister since the two men were at school together.

Naturally. They grew up together in the leafy suburb of Womendontmatterby (pronounced Smugbro).

Mr Adams expressed concerns earlier this week about a “witch hunt” against boxers Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-ting, who have previously failed gender eligibility tests.

Mr Adams expressed no concerns about the consequences to women of allowing male boxers to fight women. Mr Adams expressed irritation at being pressed on the subject.

Khelif and Yu-Ting were disqualified from the Women’s World Boxing Championships in March 2023 after failing gender tests. However, the IOC has different rules from the International Boxing Association.

Mr Adams said earlier this week that he was comfortable with the rules.

Of course he did. Not his nose that was going to be broken. No skin off it whatsoever.

Welp, if you can’t defend the indefensible, just hide it.

Originally a comment by Artymorty on The public is fickle.

I don’t love the media’s reporting about Truth Social because it often misses the bigger picture. The bottom line is that Truth Social was created for one purpose and it succeeded wildly at it: it is a sham product, a vehicle to sell shares on the Nasdaq stock market. How much money Truth Social itself generates or loses as a business enterprise is irrelevant. How many consumers actually use Truth Social is also irrelevant, at least in terms of Trump’s income.

As of this moment, Donald Trump’s 114,750,000 shares in Truth Social are worth $29.60 apiece, for a total of $3,086,775,000. That’s three billion dollars, generated virtually out of thin air — far and away the most profitable venture of his entire life, generating vastly more than his entire net worth was as recently as a few months ago, when he lost that big New York civil suit. Some questions remain about how and when exactly he’ll be able to cash in those stocks and make off with the money, because the moment he pulls the trigger and grabs the cash, everyone else who invested in Truth Social will lose their shirt.

It annoys me when reporters conflate Truth social’s revenue fluctuations with its stock valuation. The company’s revenue figures are in the millions; chump change compared to the stock valuation which is in the billions. They’re on entirely separate planets of relevance, and it’s lazy of journalists to try to build a story by mushing the two together. It’s also lazy of journalists to report of the stock value’s fluctuations as though Trump is losing money. That stock went from $0 to $5 billion in the last six months. In the turbulent in-between days it’s shot up to as high as $9 billion and as low as $3.5 billion. Still, none of those dollar figures represents a loss; that’s all free money for Trump any way you look at it, conjured out of a brazen and illegal stock trading scheme pulled off right in front of the authorities.

Still, it’s interesting that there appears to be less user activity on the website.

It could be simply because there are so many other outlets for Trump worshippers to get their fix now that the election is in full swing. He’s on all the news; he’s doing rallies. They don’t need to log into his little social media feed to keep abreast of the goings on in Trumpworld.

But it could also be a sign his followers are fickle, and are getting bored with the novelty of Trump’s outrageous schtick. Maybe the prospect of four more years of Trump, now that the possibility is closer to becoming a reality, is making people wary.

People used to love Kanye West and they lapped up his crazy, outrageous antics, until they suddenly didn’t. One antic too many gave people a sour taste, and Team Kanye quickly dissolved and scattered. Maybe Trump is finally reaching Peak Kanye.

Oh dear, people are getting bored with Trump. How sad.

Donald Trump’s social media venture is losing users every month, hurting his bottom line and possibly showing that his rhetoric is losing appeal even among his own base.

The Guardian spoke to a right-wing media analyst, Howard Polskin, who said that Truth Social had only 2.11 million unique users in June, a decline of 38 percent from one year ago.

…

The venture was supposed to be Trump’s cash cow, as the former president and convicted felon owns 60 percent of the company. But a series of setbacks since launching have ruined Trump’s financial fail-safe. The company had a net loss of $58.2 million in 2023, numbers that had to be reaudited after its accounting firm was charged with “massive fraud” and subsequently barred from ever serving as accountants again. The company lost an astonishing $327.6 million last quarter, only bringing in $770,500 in revenue.

I’m no expert, but that doesn’t sound like a desirable outcome.

Wrong.

He’s a MAN with a DSD. Not a woman with a DSD but a man with a DSD.

It just gets worse and worse.

Who is Alex Kay Jelski? This guy:

Horrible.

Updating to add Oliver Brown in a live report from the Telegraph:

Angela Carini was in floods of tears as she stopped to speak in the interview area, having abandoned her bout with Imane Khelif after only 46 seconds. Her voice quavering, she said that she pulled out because she had never been hit so hard. Imane Khelif swept through the mixed zone without saying a word. It is staggering to think how only yesterday, Mark Adams, the International Olympic Committee’s spokesman, had said that everyone should just “dial down” the issue and not instigate a “witchhunt”. To reiterate, Khelif had failed two sex tests by the International Boxing Association. It is, frankly, an absolute scandal.

So. I guess we can be glad she’s still alive.

Oliver Brown in the Telegraph on the IOC’s reckless endangerment:

At 11.20 on Thursday morning, inside the North Paris Arena, Italian boxer Angela Carini is going to be punched in the head by an opponent who has failed a sex test to fight against women. We already know the punishment that Imane Khelif is capable of inflicting: in 2022, the Algerian landed shots of such force on Mexico’s Brianda Tamara that the beaten fighter said she was grateful simply to escape the ring alive.

The International Olympic Committee is aware of all this. The dispute over Khelif’s biology is recorded in its official Games notes. And yet in a sport where the danger of death is ever-present, and despite studies documenting that men punch 2.6 times harder than women, its response is simply to sit back and do nothing.

It is difficult to imagine a more wretched dereliction of duty. Forget merely discriminating against female athletes, the IOC is now actively exposing them to the potential for extreme harm.

In Khelif and Lin Yu-ting of Taiwan, these Olympics have two boxers thrown out of last year’s world championships due to concerns over their testosterone levels. So what are they doing in Paris? Mark Adams, the IOC’s spokesman, sounded irritated that anyone had the temerity to ask. “These boxers are entirely eligible – they are women on their passports,” he bristled. “It’s not helpful to start stigmatising people like this. We all have a responsibility not to turn it into some kind of witch-hunt.”

Thank you. Exactly what I furiously pointed out yesterday. Women on their fucking passports.

Adams’ use of the passport defence is particularly risible. In 2019, the Court of Arbitration for Sport formally established that human biology, rather than legal status or gender identity, was the only means of determining an insuperable male advantage. And now the IOC dares to accuse those asking questions of “stigmatising”? …

The problem is not just that Adams lacks any expertise about boxing, but that a male IOC executive with no skin in the game is presuming to tell women what they should and should not accept. And it is evident, from the mood in Paris and beyond, that many women refuse to put up with this arrogance any longer.

Let’s hope so.

Well this has put the cat among the pigeons.

Statement made by the International Boxing Association regarding Athletes Disqualifications in World Boxing Championships 2023

As stated, the International Boxing Association (IBA) feels it appropriate at this prevalent time, to address recent media statements regarding those athletes Lin Yu-ting and Imane Khelif, particularly regarding their participation in the Paris Olympic Games 2024.

We wish to make the following points in these regards:

On 24 March 2023, IBA disqualified athletes Lin Yu-ting and Imane Khelif from the IBA Women’s World Boxing Championships New Delhi 2023. This disqualification was a result of their failure to meet the eligibility criteria for participating in the women’s competition, as set and laid out in the IBA Regulations. This decision, made after a meticulous review, was extremely important and necessary to uphold the level of fairness and utmost integrity of the competition.

The level of fairness, you see. It’s not fair to let men compete in women’s sports because men have physical advantages. It’s especially unfair in a sport like boxing, that involves punching. Men punch harder. Much harder.

Point to note, the athletes did not undergo a testosterone examination but were subject to a separate and recognized test, whereby the specifics remain confidential. This test conclusively indicated that both athletes did not meet the required necessary eligibility criteria and were found to have competitive advantages over other female competitors.

The decision made by IBA on 24 March 2023, was subsequently ratified by the IBA Board of Directors on 25 March 2023. The official record of this decision can be accessed on the IBA website here IBA Board of Directors Meeting Minutes.

The disqualification was based on two tests conducted on both athletes as follows:

• Test performed during the IBA Women’s World Boxing Championships in Istanbul 2022.
• Test performed during the IBA Women’s World Boxing Championships in New Delhi 2023.

For clarification

• Lin Yu-ting did not appeal the IBA’s decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), thus rendering the decision legally binding.
• Imane Khelif initially appealed the decision to CAS but withdrew the appeal during the process, also making the IBA decision legally binding.

Our Committees have rigorously reviewed and endorsed the decision made during the World Championships. While IBA remains committed to ensuring competitive fairness in all of our events, we express concern over the inconsistent application of eligibility criteria by other sporting organizations, including those overseeing the Olympic Games. The IOC’s differing regulations on these matters, in which IBA is not involved, raise serious questions about both competitive fairness and athletes’ safety.

For clarification on why the IOC permits athletes with competitive advantages to compete in their events, we urge interested parties to seek answers directly from the IOC.

Boom.

Originally a comment by Bjarte Foshaug on Remember the swing voters.

Of course we all live in our own little bubbles these days, and despair can distort the perspective of anyone including me. Still, from where I stand, the general tone of the conversation still sounds too much like 2016, when so many liberals and lefties were talking and acting as if Trump’s followers were supporting him by mistake, because they just didn’t know how awful he truly was, and would start abandoning him in droves as soon as they realized their mistake, hence the many confident predictions that his base would turn against him whenever he said or did something outrageous (i.e. whenever he said or did anything at all). It’s as if the 2016 election, all the scandals of Trump’s first presidency, his two impeachments, his endless legal trouble, and even his attempted coup d’etat (!) never happened, and we were still basically dealing with a normal, democratic politician who just happened to have a somewhat “unconventional style”. In the end, as we all know, all of Trump’s supposedly career-ending scandals didn’t stop him from gaining votes between 2016 and 2020.

So as much as I sincerely hope I’m wrong, I’ll be surprised if he doesn’t win again*. I almost wrote “pleasantly surprised” out of old habit, but I can’t honestly say I find anything “pleasant” about any of the available options, although there can be no doubt as to which candidate would be the lesser evil. If I’m right, then that will be it. Forget about “taking back power next time”. There won’t be a “next time”. I’m sure there will be (some parody of) an “election” in 2028, but it will be as meaningless as the next “election” in Russia.

* Not the popular vote, to be sure, but as the title of this post reminds us, he doesn’t need the popular vote to be first past the post.

Eli Stokols at Politico on the other hand thinks Trump’s game of Tease the Black Journalists blew up in his face.

“She was always of Indian heritage and she was only promoting Indian heritage,” Trump said, prompting audible gasps and murmurs, according to reporters in the room. “I didn’t know she was Black until a number of years ago until she happened to turn Black and now she wants to be known as Black.”

Trump continued to make the same point about Harris’ ancestry even as one of the moderators, ABC News’ Rachel Scott, interjected that Harris attended an historically Black college and has always identified as Black.

“She was Indian all the way and then all of the sudden she made a turn and she became a Black person,” Trump said.

…

The interview marked Trump’s first major attempt to pivot a campaign designed to defeat Biden toward a younger and more challenging opponent, and laid bare the difficulties the Republican nominee and his movement more broadly may have in taking on a woman of color without veering into misogynistic, racist invective. While many in Trump’s base may agree with his blunt assessment of Harris as a political token, it may reinforce the former president’s vulnerabilities with swing voters heading into the final stretch of what looks to be a very close election.

Ah the swing voters. I always forget about the swing voters. They’re too subtle for me.

Just hours after the event, Trump appeared to double down on the idea that people of mixed backgrounds can’t identify as more than one ethnicity, posting a video on his Truth Social account showing Harris, in his words, “saying she’s Indian, not Black” and calling her a “stone cold phony.”

Ok so Trump is 100% German; his mother’s contribution has nothing to do with the matter, he’s all his father’s idenniny. Hey I don’t make the rules.

Trump’s comments about Harris’ mixed heritage drew an immediate rebuke from the White House, where press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre was read Trump’s quote questioning Harris’ race during a press briefing.

“As a person of color, as a Black woman in this position … what he just said, what you just read out to me is repulsive, it’s insulting,” Jean-Pierre said in response. “No one has any right to tell someone how they identify. “

Repulsive and insulting are of course the goal.

In his most watched public appearance since Harris took over for Biden atop the Democratic ticket, Trump’s coarse, cutting and at times snappish responses, including calling one of Scott’s questions “nasty,” showed him to be very much the same person he has always been despite the assassination attempt earlier this month that he initially claimed had changed his outlook and approach.

Yeah well nobody believed that. Nothing changes Trump. Nothing can change Trump. He has this little tiny core character-engine and all it can do is turn out the same old crap. It can’t be altered in any way, it can only be turned off.

Trump took issue with the first question he was asked, as Scott ticked off a number of past comments that many have seen as racist: questioning former President Barack Obama’s American citizenship, telling four congresswomen of color to go back to where they came from, describing Black district attorneys as animals and attacking Black journalists for questions he deemed “stupid.”

“Why should Black voters trust you after you’ve used language like that?” Scott said.

Trump responded defensively: “I don’t think I’ve ever been asked a question in such a horrible manner.” He called ABC a “fake news network” and dismissed Scott’s question as “disgraceful.”

Yes sure it’s the question that’s disgraceful, not the behavior the question is about.

The hangout with Black journalists went as expected: Trump being as rude and disgusting as possible for points or attention or both. He wins even if he loses, because he gets his jollies being rude and disgusting.

Trump falsely asserted during an event with Black journalists that Harris was “Indian all the way” and suddenly “became a Black person.” He also gave credence to those suggesting Harris doesn’t deserve to be vice president by saying she “could be” in the job because of a push for diversity, equity and inclusion. And he lambasted one of the events’ Black moderators as “very rude,” turning the event into a spectacle that could refocus attention on his own 2024 White House campaign.

…

Trump has long been willing to wade into fraught political territory with inflammatory statements, many of them touching on racial issues. His comments about Harris are just the latest example.

“I didn’t know she was Black until a number of years ago when she happened to turn Black and now she wants to be known as Black. So, I don’t know, is she Indian or is she Black?” Trump said Wednesday.

Is Trump a German Nazi or a Nazi German?

“Chaos is his friend, it’s a partner he uses,” University of Illinois-Chicago political science and communication professor Zizi Papacharissi said in an interview before Wednesday’s event. “Chaos and noise is an election strategy for him. Above all he’s trying to create noise and distraction.”

It’s an election strategy but it’s also his happy place. He loves being shitty. He loves it the way real people love dogs or travel or cats or art or music or conversation. Trump is all about the recreational bullying and belittling.

Picking a fight is a favorite Trump pastime. His appetite for conflict was evident from the beginning of Wednesday’s event, when he excoriated a journalist for her first question noting his history of racially-charged language and asking why Black voters should trust him.

“I don’t think I’ve ever been asked a question in such a horrible manner, the first question,” Trump responded, adding “I think it’s a very rude introduction.”

Trump criticized the reporter again later, saying she treated him “very rudely.”

Trump treats everyone very rudely. See above. It’s his strategy but it’s also his fun.