With who, the Red Skull?
Red Skull is too competent for the job.
MarkWayne “Hillbilly Is Right There In His First Name” Mullins is her replacement.
My money was on Kid Rock.
IKR? Putting the cheek fillers/fat removal aside, why can’t plastic surgery improve necks or hands? Honest question.
Surgical tech here! It can, but it’s a more expensive operation so a lot of people just don’t. We can fix it later.
One of my surgeons was talking about that just a couple days ago.
Did they finally figure out a way to resurrect the broken corpse of Hitler with AI?
Bye Bye Cosplay Bambi
Time to show Talibondi Barbie the door next.
Won’t fix the historic mess of an administration, but it’s a start.
Replacing scat with shit.
This is why I really want to celebrate this, however I know in my bones there’s nothing to celebrate.
How can he be both President and Secretary of whatever specific bullshit this is?
I think it means that Trump is replacing her with someone else, not that he’s taking both positions. I was confused at first too.
From the article:
President Donald Trump says he’s replacing his embattled Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and will nominate in her place Oklahoma Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin.
The headline is just really stupidly worded.
It’s certainly some light title gore.
It certainly is not, unless you also think “I’m going to make you a pie” is me literally threatening to turn you into a pastry.
OK, fine, it’s medium title gore.
If your takeaway from that headline, given what I will afford you are two technically semantically correct options, is that the POTUS, for literally the first time in history, is acting as a member of their own cabinet and not just that they’re replacing a member thereof, it’s not incumbent on the Associated Press to account for that. I’m consistently baffled at how much people will blame news headlines for their own functional illiteracy and then refuse to even peek into the article for five seconds to check.
To read the title that way at first is a brain fart; to still be confused after stopping and thinking for a second is stupidity. To not check the article afterward is willful ignorance.
… is that the POTUS, for literally the first time in history …
To be fair, there are a lot of things Trump has done that were firsts for the office. I initially misread the headline too, simply because I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump did something absurd like replacing Noem with himself. Because he does a lot of absurd things that have never been done by a US president before. I understood it correctly after reading more, but if someone’s misreading the headline as something bizarre, it’s probably because every headline is bizarre nowadays.
The title is accurate, but it is also poorly worded because of that possible interpretation.
You’re getting downvotes because people aren’t willing to admit their brains picked the the stupidest interpretation of the headline and just went with that instead of actually thinking about the more likely way it was meant, or reading ANY of the article to verify. They’re reacting to defend that initial assumption, instead of acknowledging that they made an incorrect off the cuff assumption from the headline and just moving on with their day. They’re doing exactly what MAGA does, that they criticize them for constantly, and a source of how we got into this political shitstorm of a system in the first place.
My point is that it’s poorly worded.
It isn’t; you just really fucking suck at reading and want to blame that on professional writers. Not just reading as a skill but reading as a casual interest, given you again intentionally didn’t even check the article.
Agentive interpretation, not anticausative.
If only there were some way to make the title less arbitrary.
It’s not arbitrary - it’s ambiguous. Context clues, world knowledge, and the entire attached article are more than enough to resolve the ambiguity.
All natural human languages show structural ambiguity like this, especially when it comes to headlines which famously favor brevity over clarity, and the built in feature of human language to solve it is pragmatics.
You’re right that “ambiguous” would have been a better word.
Anyway, the title is too ambiguous and could have been better worded like the other dozen articles I’ve seen about the exact same thing, which was my singular point the entire time.
Use your pragmatics module! Find those context clues! You can do it! I believe in you!
Damn, I would not want to be a puppy in South Dakota right now
The thumbnail photograph chosen is chef’s kiss a work of art.
PBS doing what needs to be done.
Hegseth next!
It’s a toss-up between Pistol Pete and RFK “Peewee Mengele” Jr. Also Bondo.
deleted by creator
So they’re replacing a sycophant with another sycophant nepobaby with SDE.
