I'm not sure if you get this in the news in the USA but trump and his administration are pretty much constantly mocked and made fun of in the press - at least here in Europe. It's just constant legitimate mockery about specific incidents - most recent I saw was the press trying to figure out if trump actually understands the meaning of the word "decapitate" as he used it in a nonsensical way a couple of days ago.
Oh, I bring this up because of the picture they used in this article.
Most Americans are not exposed to many foreign news outlets unless they seek it out. But we have our own share of media doing the same. The bigger issue is that people tend to subscribe to echo-chamber opinion-news outlets.
I think it's more nuanced than that. Obviously countries have differences on how aligned the people and the press are, but there's also the aspect of how highly educated the people are.
FWIW, I feel like the press in Finland doesn't try to "win" points by pointing out the humiliation and the utter failure of the current state of affairs in the US, because that point is plainly obvious, but the reporting more closely reflects the forces and agenda going on under the surface.
The embarrassment stuff is more for the coffee-table chitchat and having a collective sigh of relief with your co-workers that we're not so intimately close to the whole mess there.
Metaphoric use of 'decapitation' referring to an organization or state is normal and idiomatic in American English, especially if you spend a lot of time talking to people with military backgrounds. There's plenty of other stuff going on right now that's actually worth criticism.
As an American, I'm only aware because James Acaster started some deep-seeded obsession with British panel shows, and they'll tear into him in a few of the more political ones like 8 Out of 10 Cats
Also you: completely fell for the US vs EU inflammatory propaganda of the last two years.
Yeah, good thing you only read the realest news, and only interact with the most honest voices in the most earnest manner.
I'm sure if you open most European news publications, then by volume most of the articles will be about how Trump is a goofball (at all times), just like how the parent comment apparently claims. There is no way they simply meant that whenever he is in the news, it's usually not because he was being a respectable fella, and is thus being represented accordingly.
There's a point beyond which it becomes a bit too difficult to believe just innocent gullability, compared to intentionally fanning the flames. I wonder which one applies to you?
I think perhaps you don't recognize how strong freedom of the press is in the US? We get a lot of articles mocking Trump and making fun of him. There was an entire saga over the past month where he tried and failed to renovate a pool, which was very funny until he started arresting people for noticing that the pool coating failed. As I've said before, a lot of American humor about Trump has to be tempered with the knowledge that his goons are going to start shooting people when he loses the 2028 election.
They might even start shooting after 2026 at this rate.
But it's a bit more mixed for international awareness. The press isn't suppressed here, but that's not for the lack of trying. There's also a lot of whitewashing of Trump's actions in American media because they are afraid of retaliation. We crossed the Onion territory quite a while ago and people just shrug it off.
Most of the whitewashing complaints I've seen are from people who just aren't familiar with journalistic language. (Understandable, if you're only into politics because Trump is making such a mess of things!)
In non-journalistic contexts, when person A describes a series of events matter-of-factly from person B's perspective, they're implicitly vouching that the perspective makes sense and B acted reasonably. Otherwise who cares what Person B thinks? But reporters often have to cover Persons B whose perspectives are important to understand (because they're very powerful) yet nonsensical and unreasonable. It's very hard to square this circle for readers who aren't familiar with the problem.
>people who just aren't familiar with journalistic language.
It's not even that. Seeing the different in headlines from the same publications in 2023 vs. 2024 vs. 2025 is staggering. Publications that are otherwise well respected. There's clearly something going on here.
Also, some publications indeed are not legally "news". I'm not surprised how quickly coverage changed for, say, Fox Entertainment (because it's sure not "Fox News").
As an American, I can tell you mocking him just fuels his fire, both personally and his MAGA movement. You think you have helped by pointing out the absurdity, but you have only picked a side in his fake wrestling match. You are now part of the show, the ultimate audience participation circus act, where the only goal is to grow the audience and keep it going as long as possible.
Or the copyright owner recognises that suing the current administration in court is going to risk other negative consequences and those are not worth the risk. Or perhaps it's just that taking the US government to court is going to cost a lot of money and take years, so "just asking" is the first step.
This is a very Western-centric way of thinking. The Japanese are culturally oriented toward "saving face" rather than directly confronting things like this. It's very likely that Nintendo approached their own government with private complaints, and the government is handling it diplomatically, rather than Nintendo causing more drama for their company (and country) by immediately suing the US government.
That's a very Orientalistic interpretation of what we have, where a Japanese company is understandably afraid of a batshit crazy leader of the world's most powerful nation with a history of exceptionalism and ignoring international laws, so like any other good capitalist organization, they want to solve it through a "gentlemen's agreement" rather than attacking the emperor and risk hurting shareholder values.
And this is its own stereotyped vision coming from, well i don't even know what you're allowed to call it these days but i guess it controls the progressive left now?
1. Trump doesn't care if he costs U.S. taxpayers money. He'd only care if he was personally sued.
2. A foreign party using U.S. courts to sue the U.S. government has always been a dicey proposition. Some parties are more "equal" than others under U.S. law.
3. The current U.S. regime is petty enough to slap retaliatory tariff's on all of Japan (thereby making Americans pay extra for Japanese goods).
Really, there are no carrots or sticks that work on Trump right now. Americans have not yet had their Magna Carta moment.
This is one of those cases were I'm just stumped for answers, not sure who is right, could go either way.
Doesn't look like a high stakes case at face value. But if you look at the components individually, there's a lot of the most difficult elements. International law, the three powers interacting, intellectual property...
The matter of the dispute seems inconsequential, but my subjective opinion is that IP often uses a lot of the same judicial mechanisms that higher stakes civil and even criminal cases use, IP is often the guinea pig of the full extent of the law, you'd think it's the other way around, but cases like murder and CSAM often rely on good will, common sense, shared notions of right vs evil, journalism. In cases like IP disputes, whatever judgments are achieved, are done through an almost exclusively mechanistic implementation of the law (with modestly deep pockets fueling the machine, sure it's big companies, but let's not pretend nintendo, LaLiga or even Hollywood run the world).
I'm leaning towards fair use, I haven't seen the actual memes, but if it's truly a meme, that would be transformative. So it wouldn't depend on the fact that one party is an executive branch representing a country, nor the fact that there's two different legal systems. That said, fair use is an American concept, not sure Japan has that. At any rate, this is all mostly American jurisdiction, so if by American courts this is legal according to American rules, Nintendo has an American subsidiary, sells to the US. I'd lean towards there not being a case, but I can see how this might be Nintendo's standard strategy in pursuing a loss-loss scenario by wasting time and lawyer fees in an inconsequential manner. Kind of like a chicken game in game theory. As far as I know the optimal counterstrategy are counterclaims, and claiming legal fees, that would be a legal battle I'd spectate with a popukoruno baketo
I'm not sure if you get this in the news in the USA but trump and his administration are pretty much constantly mocked and made fun of in the press - at least here in Europe. It's just constant legitimate mockery about specific incidents - most recent I saw was the press trying to figure out if trump actually understands the meaning of the word "decapitate" as he used it in a nonsensical way a couple of days ago.
Oh, I bring this up because of the picture they used in this article.
Most Americans are not exposed to many foreign news outlets unless they seek it out. But we have our own share of media doing the same. The bigger issue is that people tend to subscribe to echo-chamber opinion-news outlets.
...
You think we are not constantly mocking trump, his entire administration, and everything his group of jack booted fascists are doing?
Boy do you need to visit some other bars!
I think it's more nuanced than that. Obviously countries have differences on how aligned the people and the press are, but there's also the aspect of how highly educated the people are.
FWIW, I feel like the press in Finland doesn't try to "win" points by pointing out the humiliation and the utter failure of the current state of affairs in the US, because that point is plainly obvious, but the reporting more closely reflects the forces and agenda going on under the surface.
The embarrassment stuff is more for the coffee-table chitchat and having a collective sigh of relief with your co-workers that we're not so intimately close to the whole mess there.
true. we the people mock him more than the press does.
Metaphoric use of 'decapitation' referring to an organization or state is normal and idiomatic in American English, especially if you spend a lot of time talking to people with military backgrounds. There's plenty of other stuff going on right now that's actually worth criticism.
A market for a usage beat reporter actually exists?
Decimate is the one that gets me. That word does not mean what he thinks it means
Decimate is like Checkmate but even BIGLY.
As an American, I'm only aware because James Acaster started some deep-seeded obsession with British panel shows, and they'll tear into him in a few of the more political ones like 8 Out of 10 Cats
We're aware. Trump's razor, if you will, is that given an array of choices the one that is maximally stupid and cruel will be chosen.
Given even some Americans mock him constantly I would hope the rest of the world does too.
Just another day in our clown ass country.
When I was in Tokyo a couple years ago, I saw a legit pro-Trump march. The world is more varied than you think.
So your press spends more time trying to be part time comedy shows than reporting real news? Ouch, I'm sorry.
Also you: completely fell for the US vs EU inflammatory propaganda of the last two years.
Yeah, good thing you only read the realest news, and only interact with the most honest voices in the most earnest manner.
I'm sure if you open most European news publications, then by volume most of the articles will be about how Trump is a goofball (at all times), just like how the parent comment apparently claims. There is no way they simply meant that whenever he is in the news, it's usually not because he was being a respectable fella, and is thus being represented accordingly.
There's a point beyond which it becomes a bit too difficult to believe just innocent gullability, compared to intentionally fanning the flames. I wonder which one applies to you?
I think perhaps you don't recognize how strong freedom of the press is in the US? We get a lot of articles mocking Trump and making fun of him. There was an entire saga over the past month where he tried and failed to renovate a pool, which was very funny until he started arresting people for noticing that the pool coating failed. As I've said before, a lot of American humor about Trump has to be tempered with the knowledge that his goons are going to start shooting people when he loses the 2028 election.
They might even start shooting after 2026 at this rate.
But it's a bit more mixed for international awareness. The press isn't suppressed here, but that's not for the lack of trying. There's also a lot of whitewashing of Trump's actions in American media because they are afraid of retaliation. We crossed the Onion territory quite a while ago and people just shrug it off.
Most of the whitewashing complaints I've seen are from people who just aren't familiar with journalistic language. (Understandable, if you're only into politics because Trump is making such a mess of things!)
In non-journalistic contexts, when person A describes a series of events matter-of-factly from person B's perspective, they're implicitly vouching that the perspective makes sense and B acted reasonably. Otherwise who cares what Person B thinks? But reporters often have to cover Persons B whose perspectives are important to understand (because they're very powerful) yet nonsensical and unreasonable. It's very hard to square this circle for readers who aren't familiar with the problem.
>people who just aren't familiar with journalistic language.
It's not even that. Seeing the different in headlines from the same publications in 2023 vs. 2024 vs. 2025 is staggering. Publications that are otherwise well respected. There's clearly something going on here.
Also, some publications indeed are not legally "news". I'm not surprised how quickly coverage changed for, say, Fox Entertainment (because it's sure not "Fox News").
As an American, I can tell you mocking him just fuels his fire, both personally and his MAGA movement. You think you have helped by pointing out the absurdity, but you have only picked a side in his fake wrestling match. You are now part of the show, the ultimate audience participation circus act, where the only goal is to grow the audience and keep it going as long as possible.
Somehow I have a feeling this administration is not going to stop.
Couldn't the real copyright owner just sue the US government and get a payout?
The fact this doesn't seem to be happening suggests that perhaps the copyright owner doesn't care?
Or the copyright owner recognises that suing the current administration in court is going to risk other negative consequences and those are not worth the risk. Or perhaps it's just that taking the US government to court is going to cost a lot of money and take years, so "just asking" is the first step.
This is a very Western-centric way of thinking. The Japanese are culturally oriented toward "saving face" rather than directly confronting things like this. It's very likely that Nintendo approached their own government with private complaints, and the government is handling it diplomatically, rather than Nintendo causing more drama for their company (and country) by immediately suing the US government.
Nintendo specifically is known to sue first, ask questions later. They just like to shake down the little guys, like their own fans.
Nintendo's model relies on the target not fighting back. Suing the US government is unwise for that reason.
That's a very Orientalistic interpretation of what we have, where a Japanese company is understandably afraid of a batshit crazy leader of the world's most powerful nation with a history of exceptionalism and ignoring international laws, so like any other good capitalist organization, they want to solve it through a "gentlemen's agreement" rather than attacking the emperor and risk hurting shareholder values.
And this is its own stereotyped vision coming from, well i don't even know what you're allowed to call it these days but i guess it controls the progressive left now?
1. Trump doesn't care if he costs U.S. taxpayers money. He'd only care if he was personally sued.
2. A foreign party using U.S. courts to sue the U.S. government has always been a dicey proposition. Some parties are more "equal" than others under U.S. law.
3. The current U.S. regime is petty enough to slap retaliatory tariff's on all of Japan (thereby making Americans pay extra for Japanese goods).
Really, there are no carrots or sticks that work on Trump right now. Americans have not yet had their Magna Carta moment.
This is one of those cases were I'm just stumped for answers, not sure who is right, could go either way.
Doesn't look like a high stakes case at face value. But if you look at the components individually, there's a lot of the most difficult elements. International law, the three powers interacting, intellectual property...
The matter of the dispute seems inconsequential, but my subjective opinion is that IP often uses a lot of the same judicial mechanisms that higher stakes civil and even criminal cases use, IP is often the guinea pig of the full extent of the law, you'd think it's the other way around, but cases like murder and CSAM often rely on good will, common sense, shared notions of right vs evil, journalism. In cases like IP disputes, whatever judgments are achieved, are done through an almost exclusively mechanistic implementation of the law (with modestly deep pockets fueling the machine, sure it's big companies, but let's not pretend nintendo, LaLiga or even Hollywood run the world).
I'm leaning towards fair use, I haven't seen the actual memes, but if it's truly a meme, that would be transformative. So it wouldn't depend on the fact that one party is an executive branch representing a country, nor the fact that there's two different legal systems. That said, fair use is an American concept, not sure Japan has that. At any rate, this is all mostly American jurisdiction, so if by American courts this is legal according to American rules, Nintendo has an American subsidiary, sells to the US. I'd lean towards there not being a case, but I can see how this might be Nintendo's standard strategy in pursuing a loss-loss scenario by wasting time and lawyer fees in an inconsequential manner. Kind of like a chicken game in game theory. As far as I know the optimal counterstrategy are counterclaims, and claiming legal fees, that would be a legal battle I'd spectate with a popukoruno baketo
This is what starts World War III
LT. Surge was truly prescient in his time. He wasn't talking about WWII.
Next up: U.S. Govt Asks Iran Govt to Stop Posting LEGO Meme Videos
That would be the Danish who'd do that, if you're looking to make an equivalent statement, no?
The Greenland thing is definitely happening isn't it