Much the same way that “It looks like it will rain tomorrow” implies that my neighbor is an idiot for planning a trip tomorrow. Do I owe him an apology and maybe a substantial amount of cash?
But this statement doesn’t say anything at all about “this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk.” Basic grammar: the subject of the sentence is “The MAGA Gang” and “this kid” is the direct object of the verb “characterize.” He’s making a statement about what the MAGA Gang (= a group from among Trump supporters) are doing, which is factually correct.
The statement certainly is critical of “the MAGA Gang,” and therefore implies that they are wrong in what they are doing, but what you allege is an inference. The implication comes from “desperately” and “score political points,” and that second one is factually correct, and readily observable. So your argument really hinges on the plain interpretation of an adverb.
Firing a talk show host for implying, even strongly, that he disagrees with a group of people is at least a little bit over the line.
And it makes me wonder if the real motivation behind all this was his criticism of Trump that same night. Trump didn’t think people would support pulling someone off the air just for that, so this phony “Kirk attack” is being used as an excuse.
It was clearly for multiple “criticisms” of Trump. The Kirk things was just a convenient excuse.
And given Trump’s tendency to claim the very best or the very worst of everything, it would explain the deification of Kirk coupled with the demonization of Kimmel.
The “something” was pretty damn mild compared to what usually goes in late night television and I am heartily tired of the faux outrage over it.
We’re in very dangerous territory if no one is ever allowed to criticize anyone Republican or liked by Trump without losing their job. That’s what my side is upset about. The MAGA cult is upset because someone dared to shoot one of them. I’m not entirely sure what all the other sides are upset about, but I’m sure there are multiple other reasons people are pissed off, as usual.
True. But boycotts are also a thing. Voting with dollars, so to speak.
If a few corporations go down in the cross fire I’m not going to shed any tears.
So what if he was? It’s still murder.
So what if he wasn’t? It’s still murder
But yeah, MAGA was falling over themselves trying to prove the shooter was far left even before Kirk’s blood was dry so… boo-hoo-hoo, someone mentioned that? Sorry, it doesn’t rise to the level of firing the star of a show while simultaneously destroying the livelihood of the 200 or so employees of that show. Way, way out of proportion to any possible offense here.
It’s tit-for-tat for how the Republicans have been acting for years. Such as after Nancy Pelosi’s husband was brutally attacked. Or the Minnesotan State Speaker of the House was brutally murdered along with her husband by someone who very, very much was politically motivated. Where was the outrage, then? Seems MAGA can dish it out but they can’t take it.
Comedians are supposed to say things, make points even while being offensive ( though Kimmel Wasn’t!).
What would Lenny Bruce think?
Smh
What LBJ said about the Smothers Brothers: After being trashed numerous times by the Smothers Brothers, President Johnson wrote them, “It is part of the price of leadership of this great and free nation to be the target of clever satirists. You have given the gift of laughter to our people. May we never grow so somber or self-important that we fail to appreciate the humor in our lives.”
Let’s say it is inappropriate.
in a free society, he’d be criticized. In a capitalistic society, people might boycott him or his sponsors.
But refusing to air his show until he shows contrition? There’s no basis for that, other than trying to curry favor when in need of help.
We’re talking past the obvious again. The MAGA-sphere needs Jimmy Kimmel to apologize for what Trump and the MAGA-sphere (dishonestly) say Kimmel said.
This is the problem with the whole
bit: there isn’t any need to argue about how they feel. The critical fact is that – just like after The Big Lie – how they feel is based on them constantly being lied to.
I’d be upset, too. It’s just that I’d be upset that the people to whom I write checks and the places from which I get my news constantly lie to, demagogue, and manipulate me.
But that’s me.
There has always been a contractual expectation not to anger consumers. Someone like Roseanne Barr wasn’t given the option of contrition. She was just gone. So it depends how bad it is and how good the contrition.
Which you have absolutely not shown to have happened in this case.
What was the government’s involvement in that particular (Roseanne Barr) story?
It seems like you might be conflating “cancel culture” with true First Amendment violations.
Jimmy Kimmel hasn’t lost his 1st Amendment rights. He can stand in time square all day long with a sign saying Fuck Trump. He’s basically been slamming him on his show on a regular basis. If you wan’t to say ABC was looking for an excuse then it was up to Kimmel not to give it to them.
I didn’t say he had.
But the Trump administration damned sure violated them.
ETA: also see…
Agreed. There’s no evidence of any viewer backlash. I’m pretty sure that Kimmel’s views regarding MAGA and Trump are already pretty well known, and he’s not losing viewers because of any recent comments. If anything, he’s serving the market for anti-Trump/MAGA views, which pretty clearly exists in this country.
And don’t forget that the government, from the president and the head of the FCC, threatened legal action. That’s what crosses the line here.
You’ll never find a previous situation even remotely analogous.
Right! If Kimmel wanted to keep his job he shouldn’t have said those things about Trump and MAGA!
Why does this discussion remind me of the stereotypical male boss who extorts sex from his subordinate by implying that her maintaining her job depends on her capitulation and compliance??
Oh. Wait. I know exactly why.
“We can do this the easy way or the hard way.” --Brendan Carr, Chair, FCC
Sure, here maybe, but what about 1930s Germany?
(Crying, but joking.)
Touche. I was thinking of American history, where the United States Supreme Court once said it was permissible to state that a deeply religious man lost his virginity to his mother in an outhouse, since it was a parody of an advertisement and maligned a public figure.