8 ms·

It really is kind of incredible. I just saw the clip and there really is absolutely nothing there. This is not even 10% as poignant of what Jon Stewart would sa

It really is kind of incredible. I just saw the clip and there really is absolutely nothing there. This is not even 10% as poignant of what Jon Stewart would say in his day. He doesn't even say anything about Kirk himself, or even about the murder—he just talks about the reaction to it. I already thought it was very suspicious that Sinclair's official press release just talks about how the remarks were "inappropriate and deeply insensitive" without describing anything about the actual remarks. And it even calls for the FCC to get involved? What this really says is: you should be very afraid, because we will completely demolish if it suits us and we don't need a pretext.

tharmas 1y ago
Its a Reichstag fire/Horst Wessel moment all rolled into one. Right out of the play book.
- kiviuq 1y ago
  the 18th century nation-state model has always been open to fascism.
  - emchammer 1y ago
    It depends on where you draw the line for acting in good faith. Justice Antonin Scalia's opening statement before a 2011 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing is worth watching. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggz_gd--UO0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggz_gd--UO0 Even more worth reading are the Federalist Papers, cover-to-cover, as he suggested. The depth to which the Framers considered the kind of situations we are in today is amazing.
    - tastyfreeze 1y ago
      Also read the anti-federalist papers. Their criticisms of weaknesses in the Constitution predict exactly how those weaknesses have been abused. Both sides of the argument understood the nature of power and humans.
      - entropicdrifter 1y ago
        And yet, here we still are. oops, I guess
        tastyfreeze 1y ago
        I'm not convinced it was an oops. Hamilton was a power hungry twat that tried to expand federal power almost immediately after ratification. But, the anti-federalists lost the argument at the time. That doesn't mean the argument was resolved completely. It just means the federalists convinced enough people the Constitution was "good enough" for ratification. We are meant to continue improving it. Now that we know for sure that the anti federalists were right about the necessary and proper clause and the interstate commerce clause we should be arguing for amendments. Convince enough people and it happens.
  - FranzFerdiNaN 1y ago
    Same with capitalism.
NedF 1y ago
[flagged]
- judahmeek 1y ago
  > Kimmel said the shooter is MAGA and the MAGA 'gang' assassinate their own. Oh, so the last X political assassins have been white, male, and apparently strong supporters of the second amendment, but they don't hate minorities enough to be MAGA? (A recent study found a link between prejudice against minorities & support for political violence[0] so...) > You now have the world you deserve, and smart people will ignore your pleas because you will never be more than a stereotype for the other side to use. Enjoy. That's funny. Multiple people have lost their jobs for basically saying the exact same thing to conservatives after Kirk's assassination. 0: https://www.psypost.org/new-study-finds-strong-links-between-prejudice-and-support-for-political-violence-in-the-united-states/ https://www.psypost.org/new-study-finds-strong-links-between...
- zeven7 1y ago
  Kimmel was clearly pulled because the fuhrer doesn't like him, because Kimmel is critical of him. You won't see conservative commentators scrutinized this closely, or at all, nor is there any precedent for the FCC acting in this way.
  - philistine 1y ago
    And Donald Trump is stuck in an 80s mentality where late night show hosts are the most important comedians around.
- dakial1 1y ago
  He didn't say nor implied that. He implied that MAGA is trying to exploit the killing to create the image of the "terrorist left/antifa/BLM/immigrants/arab" conspiracy to their audience. Which they are 100% trying to do, like they did with Trump's shooter, who was a lunatic just like Kirk's murderer (and all the others)
  - notmyjob 1y ago
duxup 1y ago
Trump and Co. are the biggest "snowflakes". Anything that even hints at not being in line with their thoughts, they put the power of the government to work to punish it. It doesn't even matter what anyone says or thinks, once they're set on it being bad, they're on it and it's always played up to be the worst thing ever. There's no discussion, no indication what really happened, facts are irrelevant, all lies and threats: https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/trump-free-speech-abc-reporter-charlie-kirk-video-b2827626.html https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/trump-free-speech-abc-...
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- doctorpangloss 1y ago
  It’s always projection with those people.
- dgrr19 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - curt15 1y ago
    Any repercussions for the tv presenters spreading Birther garbage back in the day?
- _DeadFred_ 1y ago
  When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because this is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because this is according to my principles. - Frank Herbert
- josefritzishere 1y ago
  Increasingly this resembles a mandatory state ideology.
jjfoooo4 1y ago
The Sinclair statement is just bizarre. Kimmel is to pay restitution to Kirk's (millionaire) widow because of statements he made about the political reaction to his death? The pretext is really falling away.
- Rapzid 1y ago
  Media and the public have been going soft on the Trump admin for extorting law firms, businesses, and institutions because "Ah, it's just money. Just a settlement. No big deal". It's not about Kimmel or the money, it's about the next person not stepping out of line so they don't face the consequences.
fhdkweig 1y ago
For those who want to see the full clip in context, he has a youtube channel (for now). The video in question is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHT7ICvMtlA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHT7ICvMtlA (Sept 16, 2025) and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j3YdxNSzTk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j3YdxNSzTk (Sept 15, 2025)
- hnuser123456 1y ago
  The quote cited in TFA claims that the murderer was "one of them". Now, why would someone take out a prominent spokesperson for their own party? They wouldn't, because that's not something that people do to other people they agree with. But somehow, people interpret that remark to make sense? The remark only makes sense if "one of them" refers to the fact the shooter was a white male, and the reader believes all white males are on the same side, and the enemy, and that the incident serves as entertainment. So, yes, I find that remark extremely problematic, and representative of increasingly tribal and divisive "us vs. them" mentality that is gridlocking the country. Not to mention, the comment is itself using the event for political "told-you-so"-ism, while criticizing others for doing exactly that, so it's utterly hypocritical. We can and must set a higher standard for our talking heads. If you want to be a popular figure without burning bridges, maybe don't be so brazenly racist and sexist to the point of publicly celebrating murder because it was "one of them", thinking that proves anything other than that the speaker is a sociopath?
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - throwaway-11-1 1y ago
    is this post sarcasm? I can't even tell anymore
  - fhdkweig 1y ago
    The "one of them" was a reference to the speculation that the killer would turn out to be a blue hair "tranny". https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/trump-loyalist-spreads-wild-theory-131515710.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/trump-loyalist-spreads-w... There was also the theory that it was a black person, hence all the death threats to historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) https://duckduckgo.com/?q=death+threats+hbcu https://duckduckgo.com/?q=death+threats+hbcu So, yes, there was quite a bit of "see, it wasn't one of ours, it was one of yours" after the guy was caught. Especially when the images of the shooter's mother started surfacing indicating he was raised that way. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=tyler+robinson+mother+gun https://duckduckgo.com/?q=tyler+robinson+mother+gun . Charlie Kirk's mother at the memorial service specifically blamed college for radicalizing him, saying that good mother's wouldn't send their kids to college. (I don't have that clip.) In general, my philosophy is to not speculate publicly when the shooter was going to get caught and identified quickly anyway.
somenameforme 1y ago
[flagged]
- rich_sasha 1y ago
  I have almost no context here. I only found out Kirk, RIP, existed, when the news of the shooting hit. But I watched the clip (I don't know the comedian) and it really doesn't make fun of the assassination. It makes fun of JD Vance. I strongly agree you don't make fun of tragedies, especially polarising ones, but this really doesn't do that.
  - somenameforme 1y ago
    You, and I, and millions of others. Yet another example of how this shooter was stuck in some serious online bubbles. If there was even a vaguely contrarian voice, they would have mentioned his entire idea would, and has, turned a guy most people have never even heard of into a vastly more well known martyr. Anyhow, the post that was "giving context" linked the actual video that likely got Kimmel canned second. Here it is timestamped to the section: https://youtu.be/-j3YdxNSzTk?t=122 https://youtu.be/-j3YdxNSzTk?t=122
tsoukase 1y ago
Both Jon Stewart and Jimmy Kimmel do funny anti-governmental shows, but the difference is the former is kind of silly, superficial, low-impact, short-sighted while the latter is more influential, serious and capable to generate opposition.
- tsoukase 1y ago
  To continue my comment. I enjoy both, even Jon more. My point was that the seemingly broader public impact of Jimmy lead to his ban. If it escelates to Jon then I do not see any difference than nations like Russia or China.

tharmas 1y ago

Its a Reichstag fire/Horst Wessel moment all rolled into one. Right out of the play book.

kiviuq 1y ago
the 18th century nation-state model has always been open to fascism.
- emchammer 1y ago
  It depends on where you draw the line for acting in good faith. Justice Antonin Scalia's opening statement before a 2011 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing is worth watching. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggz_gd--UO0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggz_gd--UO0 Even more worth reading are the Federalist Papers, cover-to-cover, as he suggested. The depth to which the Framers considered the kind of situations we are in today is amazing.
  - tastyfreeze 1y ago
    Also read the anti-federalist papers. Their criticisms of weaknesses in the Constitution predict exactly how those weaknesses have been abused. Both sides of the argument understood the nature of power and humans.
    - entropicdrifter 1y ago
      And yet, here we still are. oops, I guess
      - tastyfreeze 1y ago
        I'm not convinced it was an oops. Hamilton was a power hungry twat that tried to expand federal power almost immediately after ratification. But, the anti-federalists lost the argument at the time. That doesn't mean the argument was resolved completely. It just means the federalists convinced enough people the Constitution was "good enough" for ratification. We are meant to continue improving it. Now that we know for sure that the anti federalists were right about the necessary and proper clause and the interstate commerce clause we should be arguing for amendments. Convince enough people and it happens.
- FranzFerdiNaN 1y ago
  Same with capitalism.

NedF 1y ago

[flagged]

judahmeek 1y ago
> Kimmel said the shooter is MAGA and the MAGA 'gang' assassinate their own. Oh, so the last X political assassins have been white, male, and apparently strong supporters of the second amendment, but they don't hate minorities enough to be MAGA? (A recent study found a link between prejudice against minorities & support for political violence[0] so...) > You now have the world you deserve, and smart people will ignore your pleas because you will never be more than a stereotype for the other side to use. Enjoy. That's funny. Multiple people have lost their jobs for basically saying the exact same thing to conservatives after Kirk's assassination. 0: https://www.psypost.org/new-study-finds-strong-links-between-prejudice-and-support-for-political-violence-in-the-united-states/ https://www.psypost.org/new-study-finds-strong-links-between...
zeven7 1y ago
Kimmel was clearly pulled because the fuhrer doesn't like him, because Kimmel is critical of him. You won't see conservative commentators scrutinized this closely, or at all, nor is there any precedent for the FCC acting in this way.
- philistine 1y ago
  And Donald Trump is stuck in an 80s mentality where late night show hosts are the most important comedians around.
dakial1 1y ago
He didn't say nor implied that. He implied that MAGA is trying to exploit the killing to create the image of the "terrorist left/antifa/BLM/immigrants/arab" conspiracy to their audience. Which they are 100% trying to do, like they did with Trump's shooter, who was a lunatic just like Kirk's murderer (and all the others)
- notmyjob 1y ago

duxup 1y ago

Trump and Co. are the biggest "snowflakes". Anything that even hints at not being in line with their thoughts, they put the power of the government to work to punish it. It doesn't even matter what anyone says or thinks, once they're set on it being bad, they're on it and it's always played up to be the worst thing ever. There's no discussion, no indication what really happened, facts are irrelevant, all lies and threats: https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/trump-free-speech-abc-reporter-charlie-kirk-video-b2827626.html https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/trump-free-speech-abc-...

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
doctorpangloss 1y ago
It’s always projection with those people.
dgrr19 1y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- curt15 1y ago
  Any repercussions for the tv presenters spreading Birther garbage back in the day?
_DeadFred_ 1y ago
When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because this is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because this is according to my principles. - Frank Herbert
josefritzishere 1y ago
Increasingly this resembles a mandatory state ideology.

jjfoooo4 1y ago

The Sinclair statement is just bizarre. Kimmel is to pay restitution to Kirk's (millionaire) widow because of statements he made about the political reaction to his death? The pretext is really falling away.

Rapzid 1y ago
Media and the public have been going soft on the Trump admin for extorting law firms, businesses, and institutions because "Ah, it's just money. Just a settlement. No big deal". It's not about Kimmel or the money, it's about the next person not stepping out of line so they don't face the consequences.

fhdkweig 1y ago

For those who want to see the full clip in context, he has a youtube channel (for now). The video in question is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHT7ICvMtlA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHT7ICvMtlA (Sept 16, 2025) and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j3YdxNSzTk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j3YdxNSzTk (Sept 15, 2025)

hnuser123456 1y ago
The quote cited in TFA claims that the murderer was "one of them". Now, why would someone take out a prominent spokesperson for their own party? They wouldn't, because that's not something that people do to other people they agree with. But somehow, people interpret that remark to make sense? The remark only makes sense if "one of them" refers to the fact the shooter was a white male, and the reader believes all white males are on the same side, and the enemy, and that the incident serves as entertainment. So, yes, I find that remark extremely problematic, and representative of increasingly tribal and divisive "us vs. them" mentality that is gridlocking the country. Not to mention, the comment is itself using the event for political "told-you-so"-ism, while criticizing others for doing exactly that, so it's utterly hypocritical. We can and must set a higher standard for our talking heads. If you want to be a popular figure without burning bridges, maybe don't be so brazenly racist and sexist to the point of publicly celebrating murder because it was "one of them", thinking that proves anything other than that the speaker is a sociopath?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway-11-1 1y ago
  is this post sarcasm? I can't even tell anymore
- fhdkweig 1y ago
  The "one of them" was a reference to the speculation that the killer would turn out to be a blue hair "tranny". https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/trump-loyalist-spreads-wild-theory-131515710.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/trump-loyalist-spreads-w... There was also the theory that it was a black person, hence all the death threats to historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) https://duckduckgo.com/?q=death+threats+hbcu https://duckduckgo.com/?q=death+threats+hbcu So, yes, there was quite a bit of "see, it wasn't one of ours, it was one of yours" after the guy was caught. Especially when the images of the shooter's mother started surfacing indicating he was raised that way. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=tyler+robinson+mother+gun https://duckduckgo.com/?q=tyler+robinson+mother+gun . Charlie Kirk's mother at the memorial service specifically blamed college for radicalizing him, saying that good mother's wouldn't send their kids to college. (I don't have that clip.) In general, my philosophy is to not speculate publicly when the shooter was going to get caught and identified quickly anyway.

somenameforme 1y ago

[flagged]

rich_sasha 1y ago
I have almost no context here. I only found out Kirk, RIP, existed, when the news of the shooting hit. But I watched the clip (I don't know the comedian) and it really doesn't make fun of the assassination. It makes fun of JD Vance. I strongly agree you don't make fun of tragedies, especially polarising ones, but this really doesn't do that.
- somenameforme 1y ago
  You, and I, and millions of others. Yet another example of how this shooter was stuck in some serious online bubbles. If there was even a vaguely contrarian voice, they would have mentioned his entire idea would, and has, turned a guy most people have never even heard of into a vastly more well known martyr. Anyhow, the post that was "giving context" linked the actual video that likely got Kimmel canned second. Here it is timestamped to the section: https://youtu.be/-j3YdxNSzTk?t=122 https://youtu.be/-j3YdxNSzTk?t=122

tsoukase 1y ago

Both Jon Stewart and Jimmy Kimmel do funny anti-governmental shows, but the difference is the former is kind of silly, superficial, low-impact, short-sighted while the latter is more influential, serious and capable to generate opposition.

tsoukase 1y ago
To continue my comment. I enjoy both, even Jon more. My point was that the seemingly broader public impact of Jimmy lead to his ban. If it escelates to Jon then I do not see any difference than nations like Russia or China.