5 ms·

The reasoning for why they canned him is a total facade. Nothing he said was really that inflammatory. They canned him because they were afraid the FCC would sc

The reasoning for why they canned him is a total facade. Nothing he said was really that inflammatory. They canned him because they were afraid the FCC would screw them, then they saw their viewers were angry so they re-negged. Run of the mill spineless bean counters. They kind of won it both ways though, because they were able to feign loyalty and show gov't they only re-instated "because they had to for the money", which Trump will empathize with.

lokar 1y ago
[flagged]
- wilg 1y ago
  He did not say the shooter was a MAGA conservative.
  - lokar 1y ago
    True, but I guess I could see how people hearing it might read it that way. The general debate was between the shooter being a left winger or a right winger. He said they were wrong about him not being a right winger.
    - wilg 1y ago
      He didn't say that either technically. He said the right was trying very hard to make it look like the guy was not MAGA, which was true. Before any information was known, the right was claiming he was trans, a Democrat, whatever, and saying they had to go to war with the left, etc.
    - AgentME 1y ago
      He didn't even necessarily say they were wrong about it. He just emphasized that their top priority was making sure they could score points from it: > We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it. In between the finger-pointing, there was grieving.
  - lfuller 1y ago
    For further context, he said that the right was doing everything in their power to portray him as anything but one of them. I.e. in the absence of evidence they were attempting to pin the blame on the left.
  - Ethee 1y ago
    You are correct, and it's important that we don't continue the game of telephone that seems to be destroying this country. "We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and with everything they can to score political points from it." This was his exact quote and he's 100% right. The entire admin had called out the "Radical left" as the perpetrators before we even had a photo of the shooter. Can we please go back towards the reality where we actually read and understand the words being said instead of having them all parroted to us by media headlines?
- self_awareness 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - lokar 1y ago
    The US constitution generally protects the right to make false statements, intentionally or not, in all but a few situations.
    - self_awareness 1y ago
      (censored, don't want to pay with karma for this question)
      - tomrod 1y ago
        I think it unlikely any of this applies, since Kimmel is nominally a comedian.
        nerpderp82 1y ago
        We have to hold comedians to highest possible journalistic standard while allowing Fox News to be entertainment. This country runs on double standards.
      - arp242 1y ago
        If you want to ban saying something false then you need to start with arresting everyone who loudly and aggressively claimed that the murdered of the Democratic politicians in Minnesota was a far-left extremist and all of that. People are still claiming this, I believe. Or maybe start with all the people who kept on claiming that migrants are eating people's cats and dogs. etc. etc. etc. I can go on and on. Applying the most strictest of strictest interpretation of the law for your enemies while being exceedingly lax with the law for your friends is one if the key hallmarks of authoritarianism.
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
- almostdeadguy 1y ago
  Actually what he said was "The MAGA Gang is desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it." and it's been taken for granted that what he meant is that Tyler Robinson is MAGA, but that's not strictly what he said.
  - AnimalMuppet 1y ago
    Two points: 1. There are a lot of times that Trump says things that people take for granted that what he meant was... but that isn't strictly what he said. It seems to me that maybe 60% of the time, what people are up in arms about are things they're sure he meant, but strictly speaking he didn't actually say. Look, I'm not a Trump apologist. But if you're going to condemn Trump for what it sure looks like he's saying (but he technically didn't quite say), then don't be surprised when other people get condemned by the same standard. 2. If I understand correctly, the shooter's family was fairly conservative. So the right's reaction of "no, he was left" was, at the time, a baseless deflection of baseless accusations.
    - scheeseman486 1y ago
      > There are a lot of times that Trump says things that people take for granted that what he meant was... but that isn't strictly what he said. It seems to me that maybe 60% of the time, what people are up in arms about are things they're sure he meant, but strictly speaking he didn't actually say. The people doing this kind of reframing of Trump's statements are typically doing so to make them seem less inflammatory, usually in response to those who take him at his literal word. 'It's just a joke', 'an exaggeration', 'he didn't mean it literally'. Given how things have been going, it's clear he hasn't been joking. Kimmel's monologue, taken literally, is completely benign.
  - arp242 1y ago
    At this point his political views are still not clear. You can be pro-trans and pro-Trump at the same time. See: Caitlyn Jenner, who supported Trump in the 2024 election. Even more so given that all of this pinning on extreme-left groups started before they even found Tyler Robinson and that they did the same in Minnesota a few months ago. I think it's basically accurate: they are desperately trying to characterise it on anyone but their own, and have no regards for any facts. Even if Robinson really is far-left in every way (certainly a realistic possibility), they will be "correct" merely by accident in hindsight.
- chasil 1y ago
  He does appear to have a strong bias in past statements, although I don't know how rigorous this analysis is. "A separate study from the organization claimed that 92 percent of the jokes Kimmel made on his show since January 2023 were at the expense of conservatives, and 97 percent of his political guests were left-leaning." https://www.dailymail.co.uk/media/article-15117605/jimmy-kimmel-left-wing-conservative-guest.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/media/article-15117605/jimmy-kim...
  - wilg 1y ago
    "Bias" is biased here. There's no reason that jokes should be 50-50% in favor of however political parties are configured. It's entirely possible (and currently the case) that one side of the political aisle is worse and more deserving of ridicule.
    - chasil 1y ago
      There is no lack of bad behavior on either side of the aisle, for sure. Is this warranted? I don't know.
      - lokar 1y ago
        Comedians making fun of public figures, organizations, parties, movements etc is not bad behavior. It’s an open society.
        chasil 1y ago
        I don't mean talk show hosts. I'm taken aback by a president who recommends bleach as an antiviral. I'm taken aback by a member of congress who married her brother as part of her visa process. It just gets worse. How are we living like this? My exit strategy is more fluid than I like.
        pseudalopex 1y ago
        > I'm taken aback by a president who recommends bleach as an antiviral. Trump asked if disinfectant could be injected. He did not recommend injecting or drinking bleach.[1] > I'm taken aback by a member of congress who married her brother as part of her visa process. There is no credible evidence Ilhan Omar married her brother.[2] [1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-inject-bleach-covid-19/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-inject-bleach-covid-... [2] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ilhan-omar-marry-brother/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ilhan-omar-marry-brother/
- t-3 1y ago
  Did he actually outright say the shooter was MAGA? The clip I've heard everywhere doesn't have Kimmel saying that at all, just talking about how Republicans are dead-set on making the shooter out not to be one of them (while at that time almost no information about the perpetrator was released).
  - nomel 1y ago
    > “We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who m**dered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.” I think “as anything other than one of them” could be interpreted that way…maybe.
    - tomrod 1y ago
      It also reflects exactly what one could see from the GOP leaders and influencers up to that point, which people immediately assumed this person belonged to their preferred group of boogey men, women, and children.
    - sanktanglia 1y ago
      He said that maga are saying he isn't maga which is objectively true and doesn't weigh in on his actual motives
      - nomel 1y ago
        If read directly, then I agree. With the context cues in how he said it, I see how some people could interpret it that way. He profession is being a high context speaker, so I think this interpretation is reasonable. But, I don't think the interpretation matters, either way. It's not reasonable to use either as justification for his show being cancelled.
- happytoexplain 1y ago
  >The shooter was a MAGA conservative I mentioned this in another thread: I think the phrase "anything other than" really messed with people. In the context of his sentence, it does not necessarily mean "obviously he's MAGA", in contrast to how it's often (but not always) used in English. He's using it to emphasize MAGA's behavior, not to emphasize his own opinion of the killer's politics. Also, it simply wouldn't have made sense for him to declare that the guy was MAGA (or anything else), unless Kimmel is more unreasonable than I thought. I don't know much about him, so I could be wrong on this point, but it just seems like a misinterpretation to me that is fixed by Occam's razor.
- lovich 1y ago
  Evidence of his actual political affiliation has come out? All I’ve seen so far is a million sides harping on one minor point of the existing evidence and using that to claim their political opponents are at fault. The new meta from the past few shootings appears to be just instantly claiming the shooter is from their political opponents side, and then double down on the claim no matter what happens
  - zahlman 1y ago
    > Evidence of his actual political affiliation has come out? Yes, assuming Spencer Cox, Utah law enforcement etc. are not lying. He is said to have been in a relationship with an MtF partner, and to have communicated repeatedly with that partner, showing sympathy for LGBTQ issues in general, alluding to being part of a left-wing support community, and describing Kirk as a "fascist" and "hateful". His mother has stated that he has shifted towards left-wing politics recently, specifically as regards LGBTQ issues. Much was made initially of his "MAGA" father — who turned him in, and there is much evidence of political disagreement between the two (including in the above-mentioned communications). Cox asserted the suspect to be a leftist in an interview with Meet the Press on the 14th (https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/utah-gov-spencer-cox-shares-new-details-about-charlie-kirk-shooting-suspect-full-interview-247550021915 https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/utah-gov-spence...).
    - lovich 1y ago
      Those points could also fit a groyper with parents who don’t recognize that subset of right ideology but appears to have no problem with things like cat boy girlfriends, and were in a feud with Kirk in the months prior to this. There’s bit and pieces here but nothing conclusive so actually yea I kinda do distrust those figures in government coming out and strongly stating it was one of their political enemies. I don’t think the conservatives had anything to do with Charlie Kirk dying, but I would not be surprised if they had a playbook ready to go for such an event given how strong of claims they were making about the shooter when the evidence at that point in time didn’t exist. Never waste a good crisis and all that
Computer0 1y ago
I believe statements directed at Donald's emotional reaction to the incident were the most impactful to any direct reaction from the White House.
- defrost 1y ago
  To Donald's credit he gave a moving and eloquent eulogy for the First Amendment at the recent memorial.
  - bayarearefugee 1y ago
    [flagged]
masfuerte 1y ago
"reneged"
tptacek 1y ago
I mostly agree, but the conditions that would upset Trump still exist; more so, in fact, because of the outsized attention this got for Kimmel. And yet here he comes anyways!
shadowgovt 1y ago
It's worth remembering that Disney is a mega-corporation and all their calculus is like this. They aren't "on our side" (or, for that matter, particularly against LGBTQIA+ interests); they're on the side with money. A company that size doesn't have morals; it has assets and liabilities. That's why the Disney+ boycott / cancellation response mattered: it forced them to put losing their ABC network affiliate broadcast rights from the government on the T-sheet against losing their expensive bet on Disney+ (and all the consolidation power and direct-feedline money that brings in). If the viewers hadn't acted to put something on the other side of the T-sheet, it'd be an easy choice for the company.

lokar 1y ago

[flagged]

wilg 1y ago
He did not say the shooter was a MAGA conservative.
- lokar 1y ago
  True, but I guess I could see how people hearing it might read it that way. The general debate was between the shooter being a left winger or a right winger. He said they were wrong about him not being a right winger.
  - wilg 1y ago
    He didn't say that either technically. He said the right was trying very hard to make it look like the guy was not MAGA, which was true. Before any information was known, the right was claiming he was trans, a Democrat, whatever, and saying they had to go to war with the left, etc.
  - AgentME 1y ago
    He didn't even necessarily say they were wrong about it. He just emphasized that their top priority was making sure they could score points from it: > We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it. In between the finger-pointing, there was grieving.
- lfuller 1y ago
  For further context, he said that the right was doing everything in their power to portray him as anything but one of them. I.e. in the absence of evidence they were attempting to pin the blame on the left.
- Ethee 1y ago
  You are correct, and it's important that we don't continue the game of telephone that seems to be destroying this country. "We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and with everything they can to score political points from it." This was his exact quote and he's 100% right. The entire admin had called out the "Radical left" as the perpetrators before we even had a photo of the shooter. Can we please go back towards the reality where we actually read and understand the words being said instead of having them all parroted to us by media headlines?
self_awareness 1y ago
[flagged]
- lokar 1y ago
  The US constitution generally protects the right to make false statements, intentionally or not, in all but a few situations.
  - self_awareness 1y ago
    (censored, don't want to pay with karma for this question)
    - tomrod 1y ago
      I think it unlikely any of this applies, since Kimmel is nominally a comedian.
      - nerpderp82 1y ago
        We have to hold comedians to highest possible journalistic standard while allowing Fox News to be entertainment. This country runs on double standards.
    - arp242 1y ago
      If you want to ban saying something false then you need to start with arresting everyone who loudly and aggressively claimed that the murdered of the Democratic politicians in Minnesota was a far-left extremist and all of that. People are still claiming this, I believe. Or maybe start with all the people who kept on claiming that migrants are eating people's cats and dogs. etc. etc. etc. I can go on and on. Applying the most strictest of strictest interpretation of the law for your enemies while being exceedingly lax with the law for your friends is one if the key hallmarks of authoritarianism.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
almostdeadguy 1y ago
Actually what he said was "The MAGA Gang is desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it." and it's been taken for granted that what he meant is that Tyler Robinson is MAGA, but that's not strictly what he said.
- AnimalMuppet 1y ago
  Two points: 1. There are a lot of times that Trump says things that people take for granted that what he meant was... but that isn't strictly what he said. It seems to me that maybe 60% of the time, what people are up in arms about are things they're sure he meant, but strictly speaking he didn't actually say. Look, I'm not a Trump apologist. But if you're going to condemn Trump for what it sure looks like he's saying (but he technically didn't quite say), then don't be surprised when other people get condemned by the same standard. 2. If I understand correctly, the shooter's family was fairly conservative. So the right's reaction of "no, he was left" was, at the time, a baseless deflection of baseless accusations.
  - scheeseman486 1y ago
    > There are a lot of times that Trump says things that people take for granted that what he meant was... but that isn't strictly what he said. It seems to me that maybe 60% of the time, what people are up in arms about are things they're sure he meant, but strictly speaking he didn't actually say. The people doing this kind of reframing of Trump's statements are typically doing so to make them seem less inflammatory, usually in response to those who take him at his literal word. 'It's just a joke', 'an exaggeration', 'he didn't mean it literally'. Given how things have been going, it's clear he hasn't been joking. Kimmel's monologue, taken literally, is completely benign.
- arp242 1y ago
  At this point his political views are still not clear. You can be pro-trans and pro-Trump at the same time. See: Caitlyn Jenner, who supported Trump in the 2024 election. Even more so given that all of this pinning on extreme-left groups started before they even found Tyler Robinson and that they did the same in Minnesota a few months ago. I think it's basically accurate: they are desperately trying to characterise it on anyone but their own, and have no regards for any facts. Even if Robinson really is far-left in every way (certainly a realistic possibility), they will be "correct" merely by accident in hindsight.
chasil 1y ago
He does appear to have a strong bias in past statements, although I don't know how rigorous this analysis is. "A separate study from the organization claimed that 92 percent of the jokes Kimmel made on his show since January 2023 were at the expense of conservatives, and 97 percent of his political guests were left-leaning." https://www.dailymail.co.uk/media/article-15117605/jimmy-kimmel-left-wing-conservative-guest.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/media/article-15117605/jimmy-kim...
- wilg 1y ago
  "Bias" is biased here. There's no reason that jokes should be 50-50% in favor of however political parties are configured. It's entirely possible (and currently the case) that one side of the political aisle is worse and more deserving of ridicule.
  - chasil 1y ago
    There is no lack of bad behavior on either side of the aisle, for sure. Is this warranted? I don't know.
    - lokar 1y ago
      Comedians making fun of public figures, organizations, parties, movements etc is not bad behavior. It’s an open society.
      - chasil 1y ago
        I don't mean talk show hosts. I'm taken aback by a president who recommends bleach as an antiviral. I'm taken aback by a member of congress who married her brother as part of her visa process. It just gets worse. How are we living like this? My exit strategy is more fluid than I like.
        pseudalopex 1y ago
        > I'm taken aback by a president who recommends bleach as an antiviral. Trump asked if disinfectant could be injected. He did not recommend injecting or drinking bleach.[1] > I'm taken aback by a member of congress who married her brother as part of her visa process. There is no credible evidence Ilhan Omar married her brother.[2] [1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-inject-bleach-covid-19/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-inject-bleach-covid-... [2] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ilhan-omar-marry-brother/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ilhan-omar-marry-brother/
t-3 1y ago
Did he actually outright say the shooter was MAGA? The clip I've heard everywhere doesn't have Kimmel saying that at all, just talking about how Republicans are dead-set on making the shooter out not to be one of them (while at that time almost no information about the perpetrator was released).
- nomel 1y ago
  > “We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who m**dered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.” I think “as anything other than one of them” could be interpreted that way…maybe.
  - tomrod 1y ago
    It also reflects exactly what one could see from the GOP leaders and influencers up to that point, which people immediately assumed this person belonged to their preferred group of boogey men, women, and children.
  - sanktanglia 1y ago
    He said that maga are saying he isn't maga which is objectively true and doesn't weigh in on his actual motives
    - nomel 1y ago
      If read directly, then I agree. With the context cues in how he said it, I see how some people could interpret it that way. He profession is being a high context speaker, so I think this interpretation is reasonable. But, I don't think the interpretation matters, either way. It's not reasonable to use either as justification for his show being cancelled.
happytoexplain 1y ago
>The shooter was a MAGA conservative I mentioned this in another thread: I think the phrase "anything other than" really messed with people. In the context of his sentence, it does not necessarily mean "obviously he's MAGA", in contrast to how it's often (but not always) used in English. He's using it to emphasize MAGA's behavior, not to emphasize his own opinion of the killer's politics. Also, it simply wouldn't have made sense for him to declare that the guy was MAGA (or anything else), unless Kimmel is more unreasonable than I thought. I don't know much about him, so I could be wrong on this point, but it just seems like a misinterpretation to me that is fixed by Occam's razor.
lovich 1y ago
Evidence of his actual political affiliation has come out? All I’ve seen so far is a million sides harping on one minor point of the existing evidence and using that to claim their political opponents are at fault. The new meta from the past few shootings appears to be just instantly claiming the shooter is from their political opponents side, and then double down on the claim no matter what happens
- zahlman 1y ago
  > Evidence of his actual political affiliation has come out? Yes, assuming Spencer Cox, Utah law enforcement etc. are not lying. He is said to have been in a relationship with an MtF partner, and to have communicated repeatedly with that partner, showing sympathy for LGBTQ issues in general, alluding to being part of a left-wing support community, and describing Kirk as a "fascist" and "hateful". His mother has stated that he has shifted towards left-wing politics recently, specifically as regards LGBTQ issues. Much was made initially of his "MAGA" father — who turned him in, and there is much evidence of political disagreement between the two (including in the above-mentioned communications). Cox asserted the suspect to be a leftist in an interview with Meet the Press on the 14th (https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/utah-gov-spencer-cox-shares-new-details-about-charlie-kirk-shooting-suspect-full-interview-247550021915 https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/utah-gov-spence...).
  - lovich 1y ago
    Those points could also fit a groyper with parents who don’t recognize that subset of right ideology but appears to have no problem with things like cat boy girlfriends, and were in a feud with Kirk in the months prior to this. There’s bit and pieces here but nothing conclusive so actually yea I kinda do distrust those figures in government coming out and strongly stating it was one of their political enemies. I don’t think the conservatives had anything to do with Charlie Kirk dying, but I would not be surprised if they had a playbook ready to go for such an event given how strong of claims they were making about the shooter when the evidence at that point in time didn’t exist. Never waste a good crisis and all that

Computer0 1y ago

I believe statements directed at Donald's emotional reaction to the incident were the most impactful to any direct reaction from the White House.

defrost 1y ago
To Donald's credit he gave a moving and eloquent eulogy for the First Amendment at the recent memorial.
- bayarearefugee 1y ago
  [flagged]

masfuerte 1y ago

"reneged"

tptacek 1y ago

I mostly agree, but the conditions that would upset Trump still exist; more so, in fact, because of the outsized attention this got for Kimmel. And yet here he comes anyways!

shadowgovt 1y ago

It's worth remembering that Disney is a mega-corporation and all their calculus is like this. They aren't "on our side" (or, for that matter, particularly against LGBTQIA+ interests); they're on the side with money. A company that size doesn't have morals; it has assets and liabilities. That's why the Disney+ boycott / cancellation response mattered: it forced them to put losing their ABC network affiliate broadcast rights from the government on the T-sheet against losing their expensive bet on Disney+ (and all the consolidation power and direct-feedline money that brings in). If the viewers hadn't acted to put something on the other side of the T-sheet, it'd be an easy choice for the company.