4 ms·
“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 th
by voxadam 1y ago
“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.”
What part of that sentence qualifies as either indecent or profane?
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y agoI said that the FCC is allowed to enforce morality. The morality in question here is lying about someone being assassinated for their political views. The right sees Charlie Kirk as a political martyr (e.g. their MLK) and they don't want that taken away.
- davorak 1y ago> The morality in question here is lying about someone being assassinated for their political views. Please quote Jimmy to clear up what you think the lie was.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y agoCharlie Kirk was assassinated for his political views. Stated differently: someone with an opposing political viewpoint killed Charlie in order to stop Charlie from promoting Charlie's politics. Jimmy Kimmel said that Charlie Kirk was killed by someone with the same political views as Charlie. That is the lie.
- davorak 1y agoIs there a quote from jimmy you can share and that I can reference?
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago[flagged]
- davorak 1y agoI can not start to understand your position without a quote. It has to be something Jimmy said that lead to your beliefs, I know of no better place to start.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y agoNo one needs davorak to understand their position. A large swath of the US is angry at Jimmy Kimmel profaning their martyr through a gross lie. Those angry people have power right now and used their power to punish Jimmy Kimmel. If you don't understand that, it doesn't affect those people at all.
- xracy 1y agoGiven that this is such an easy ask, I think you should consider not about convincing davorak, but about convincing random lurkers who read your comments. I might've been swayed had you provided the actual quote, but I think davorak kinda won this argument without doing anything other than asking you for receipts. If your position was so certain you would've just provided the quote.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y agoThe quote is literally in this thread. Read upwards from your own comment. "Random lurkers" (including yourself) would have read it if they followed the thread to this point. That's why I don't think davorak is here in good faith. Look how close he was to the quote. What are you doing here? How did you get here without reading the quote?
- xracy 1y agoSorry, which part of that quote is the lie? Also, why didn't you say that it was this quote instead of leading us on this wild goose chase? Or was it just that your comment got flagged? Can't imagine why that might've been.
- 1y ago
- beej71 1y agoKimmel did not say that. You need to get the quote right.
- platevoltage 1y agoI don't think that's what did it. It was the showing of Trump being asked about his "friend" Charlie Kirk being killed, for which his response was "They're building my ballroom. It's gonna be the best ballroom. Trump has been trying to get Kimmel removed for a while for making fun of him. This was just an opportunity.
- xracy 1y agoWhat was the opportunity in that segment? Surely airing things the POTUS said is not a limitation of Freedom of the Press? The thing about the FCC threatening Kimmel for this speech, is that someone needs to identify what was problematic about the speech other than "I didn't like that he said it." I would love for someone to explain to me what the problematic part of the statement was, because I think then we could have a more substantive discussion. As is, this is pretty clearly a 1st amendment violation by the FCC chair as his statements demonstrably chilled speech (it's hard to get much clearer an example than this legally).