I do think this administration is incompetent in some ways (both associated with that incident and otherwise) but I also think your ability to properly contextualize differing interpretations or preferences regarding facts is lacking. And that more progress is likely to be achieved regarding your efforts (directed…

A lie requires deception, not inaccuracy. Not having a full picture of the facts or focusing upon some facts at the expense of acknowledging others which are reasonably questioned or discounted is not lying.

The problem here is you don't realize that (what is perceived as) the lie told by him isn't that in his view. Therefore, it isn't held to the same standard (as it would be if it were known as a lie to him) when considering his actions. But you've been presented with information that indicates what he said is…

"Win" an argument? What are you talking about? You brought up Nazis and genocide out of nowhere! So I referred to Godwin's Law which, as far as I understand it, basically relates to people bringing up Nazis for comparative purposes out of the blue in an attempt to justify some portion of their stance. You'll note I…

I appreciate you sharing your story. However, I feel it's tangential in relation to the discussion occurring here.

The "pure evil" thing is a hyperbolic generalization regarding the notion, as presented in the above, that his actions must have negative consequences regardless of what the intent or immediate "playing" was. So, while it may be applicable in some regards, it's not directed at you specifically so much as it is…

He thinks he followed the fuhrerprincip and was not culpable.

Huh? What do Nazis have to do with this? Are you taking Godwin's Law as a lifestyle choice to be embraced here?

No, that's not right.

The issue here is you think it's legitimate criticism while Spicer may think people doing that are incredibly off-base (and likely does if he's willing to engage something this critically satirical as though it's flippant nonsense). So you appear to say he's "joking to distract" because it suits your biases to do so…

As to that, I think people have a reasonable doubt and suspicion of Spicer's intentions, especially after participating in the openly ridiculous and false "size of the inauguration" debacle.

I understand that but the context is close enough that, if one puts themselves in his (or "his side's") shoes enough to see that he doesn't think he's done anything wrong and, as the "mouthpiece," he mostly works with what he's given or similar…then one can see how easily he views the Onion's "biting satire" here as…

I'm not intending to peddle false equivalence (I'm providing an example of a similar context which was misguided in the hopes that it assists in clarifying how this reaction might be) - I'm saying that almost nobody here is considering how it's perceived by people who aren't of their political leanings right now (a…

I know they aren't. My point is that when some people "joke" about "serious subjects" (at least viewed seriously by some even if others - maybe including the one joking - think they're ridiculous), sometimes it's given a pass yet it's seemingly not being done here because people here feel assured that Spicer is just…

Why not? Also, why is he considered a "henchman" (a term typically with negative connotations) if not due to political attitudes outside of the immediate? This assumes he's the bad guy and that this gives the satire more validity. But what if he's not the bad guy?

This wasn't "Pfft, yeah", this was "Ain't I a stinker?" and "Ain't I a stinker?" only works for minor misdemeanors.

To me, saying this is like saying Obama shouldn't have joked about not being born in the US or similar. Sure, only kooks and weirdos believed he wasn't (and that differs from being the case here to a notable degree as far as those disbelieving Spicer) but the notion that he was foreign-born, possibly might undermine…

The problem here is that many of these people have made up their minds that (the extent of his behavior is that) he's lying all while he thinks the very suggestion is absurd. So he sees his comment as being as sarcastic as anyone else's endorsement of The Onion would be while they see a reason this must prove his…

This is the administration that some people say "memes" contributed to getting elected. If they (Spicer and his ilk) believe that, then no. The best thing isn't to ignore such things - it's to mock them. Preferably with cartoons or gifs or things like that. So Spicer screwed that up by just going, "Sure, buddy."…

If someone you know is acting in good faith says something you think is utterly absurd about you and you say, "Sure, sure." to it, does that mean you didn't get it?