ABC pulls Jimmy Kimmel Live after comments on Charlie Kirk

[RDKirk]

Cruz must be looking at the issue more clearly.

Ben Shapiro said something similar on his recent podcast, to the effect of "This is stupid, democrats will use this against us the next time they're in power... The country is almost a 50/50 split, people are acting like it's 70/30 in our favor, it's not, if you don't think the democrats will be in power again one day, you're a idiot"

I've never though Ben was actually MAGA.

 

[RDKirk]

Every sport can be cheap to play. You don't need regulation sizes or professional equipment to pick up the basics of a game. Kids play hockey on residential streets.

Do you realize you wrote that where people could see it?

How is golf played cheaply? Yes, you do need to spend money to "pick up the basics" of the game because at the very least you have to be on a course or in a costly indoor facility to learn to stroke.

 

[FireDragon76]

I think you got right to the core of the fear we see among formerly-privileged demographics.

It shows how fundamentally Charlie Kirk's message wasn't all that Christian, despite the claims to represent "western civilization", it's real appeal was to fear and grievance: your value isn't being a child of God and heir to the promise of a Kingdom that is not of this world, it's in owning the libs, being able to be a jackass in public and get away with it, etc., all justified by ridiculous stories of grievance. To anyone of genuine spiritual sensitivity, this is trading in your inheritance for a bowl of porridge. It's not spiritual power, it's desperation in the face of unbelief.

It's also why he detested empathy, and thought it was a made up "new age" concept. Empathy is at the heart of Jesus most cited parable, the Good Samaritan. Instead, Charlie Kirk's "Christianity" was about selling a dudebro fantasy of unchallenged white male swagger as believable and credible to young men, and obscuring the fact he and his family was being compensated tens of millions of dollars to perform the kayfabe. I'm sure, on some level, that people like Erika Kirk and even Charlie himself thought it was real, but kayfabe has a tendency of working that way after a while. However, as Jesus warned, don't build your house on sand, all that will happen is that the storm comes, washes away what you have built, and all you are left with are ruins.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Turns out, they were better fighter pilots than your average white guy...

Remembering the Tuskegee Airmen | U.S. Department of the Interior

Breaking racial barriers in WWII

www.doi.gov

There are a lot of things we are better at, like charming the ladies.

 

[NxNW]

If you set a goal of hiring ten new pilots with pink hair this year, and only nine new pilots with pink hair meet the standards, you'll have to either tinker with the standards, or accept one who doesn't meet the standards.

Let me know when that actually happens.

 

[JSRG]

For now...

The whole point is that if a new person comes into power, that can absolutely change.

No. The legal justification for the level of control the FCC has over broadcast television, which would normally violate the First Amendment, does not apply to cable TV. In Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC (1969), where the Supreme Court declared some regulations on content as constitutional, it summarized its points in the final paragraph thusly:

"In view of the scarcity of broadcast frequencies, the Government's role in allocating those frequencies, and the legitimate claims of those unable without governmental assistance to gain access to those frequencies for expression of their views, we hold the regulations and ruling at issue here are both authorized by statute and constitutional."

Some have certainly criticized this reasoning, but regardless, everything in this list of reasons, while applying to broadcast television, does not apply to cable television. This is exactly why the FCC has never exerted the kind of control over cable TV that it does to broadcast TV. A new person coming into power wouldn't change these facts.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Let me know when that actually happens.

Just replace women with pink hair with woman of color. That is what actually happened.

 

[Bradskii]

Just replace women with pink hair with woman of color. That is what actually happened.

Let's be clear on this. You just said that a black woman was taken on as a pilot simply because she was black. This is something that Kirk was implying. I'd wager that he knew most definitely that it wasn't true. But you're stating it as a fact.

It is now necessary for you to produce whatever evidence you have that prompted that claim.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Except they can't, because Fox News is a cable channel, whereas ABC is broadcast. The FCC has a lot more authority in regards to regulating content on broadcast channels than it does cable channels.

That's disappointing, since they claim to be a news channel. The first time, that I watched it. They were lying about the liberal news not talking it. I think news channel should have to tell the truth. Sadly, politics news would be boring if the news didn't lie or make a big deal out of stories.

 

[rjs330]

It's weird watching people exploit his death.

Its weird watching you totally be disingenuous with the truth.

Have you missed all those on the left who have celebrated his death? I doubt it. Those who have excused his death with, OH it was tragic.... but.....

Then there is the right who is devastated by this assassination and pointing out the truth of the rhetoric from the left that led to his death.

The right hasn't fomented any violent rhetoric in response. They have been grieving and speaking out against the violence from the left.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Sadly, politics news would be boring if the news didn't lie or make a big deal out of stories.

Maybe that is why all the rating are so low on the news networks you watch. There is no possible way it could be that they were proven so many times to be fraudulent, biased, misleading, or downright wrong.

 

[rjs330]

Honestly, I think this was what ABC needed in order to suspend Kimmel. His ratings were in the dump. He wasn't funny and hasn't been for a long time. Local affiliates decided he wasnt worth carrying any more. And ABC decided he wasn't worth it. They finally got rid of a dumpster fire of a show. This was a good excuse to do it.

 

[rjs330]

I never could stand Jimmy Kimmel, especially when he cried on-air over Trump winning the election. But, I'm also for free speech. So, unless his ratings were low, I don't see a reason for dismissal.

His ratings were abysmal.

 

[rjs330]

He was mocking those who were dancing on Kirk's body, trying to make political points about it.

He was mocking his fellow leftists? They are tge only ones dancing on his grave.

With God as my witness, we are going to use every resource we have at the Department of Justice, Homeland Security and throughout this government to identify, disrupt, dismantle and destroy these networks and make America safe again for the American people,” he added. “It will happen, and we will do it in Charlie’s name.”

And they should since its the left who is responsible.

I mean what did you expect? Everyone was going to go on and pretend it was no big deal. Everyone was just going to shrug their shoulders and say, oh well?

If leftists are creating these networks that push the kind of rhetoric that is killing people, and they are, then its irresponsible to not do something to counter it for the safety of the Americans who wish to speak and express their views.

I will say that the government has to be very careful with what they are going to do. They need to operate within the boundaries of the law and the Constitution. Doing everything in their power would be an indicator that they will remain within the power structures of rhe law and Constitution.

 

[BPPLEE]

No surprise that those on the left are losing their minds now that the “cancel culture” pendulum is swinging in the right’s favor.

They’ve conveniently forgotten the phrase “Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences”. Which used to be one of their favorite phrases to use whenever someone on the right got “cancelled”.

They're not fazed by a murder but they're triggered over someone losing a job

 

[ViaCrucis]

Its weird watching you totally be disingenuous with the truth.

Have you missed all those on the left who have celebrated his death? I doubt it. Those who have excused his death with, OH it was tragic.... but.....

Then there is the right who is devastated by this assassination and pointing out the truth of the rhetoric from the left that led to his death.

The right hasn't fomented any violent rhetoric in response. They have been grieving and speaking out against the violence from the left.

Calling me disingenuous presupposes that I'm not speaking frankly and honestly. But I am.

Charlie Kirk was a controversial figure, to put it mildly. My personal opinion about him? I think he was a grifter who used his platform to espouse hate. That doesn't change the fact that his death is tragic and wrong.

For the most part that is the view I've seen most people on the left express: Charlie Kirk was a horrible person who said horrible things, but his death was an evil act. That is not celebrating his death, that is recognizing nuance: I cannot in good conscience celebrate what Charlie Kirk stood for or said in life; but I can recognize that a human life was wrongly stolen, and that is itself a serious evil. The person who killed Charlie Kirk should be brought to justice.

Are there some people out there on Twitter or in YouTube comments actively celebrating his death? Maybe? I don't know. That isn't the stuff that the algorithm sends my way. I don't have Facebook or Instagram, and I try to keep my Twitter feed limited to my nerdy hobbies and interests and cute animal videos, and I almost never will read YouTube comments--I learned to avoid doing that back in the ancient years of YouTube because I got tired of seeing racial slurs on videos about video games (I even used a browser extension for a long time that literally made the YouTube comment section invisible). So I'll freely admit, perhaps my social media exposure is limited here.

So what I do see is a condemnation of political violence, and a pushback against the claim that the left is more violent than the right (this is, objectively and factually false, based purely on raw data). I have seen people point out the hypocrisy of those who mocked when Paul Pelosi was attacked, or who seemed to lack any real sympathy for the assassination of Melissa Hortman and her husband. The fact of the matter is that high profile acts of political violence are, overwhelmingly, committed by rightwing extremists. That doesn't mean there aren't leftwing extremists committing violent acts; but the data speaks for itself. So it would be disingenuous to claim that the left's rhetoric is more violent than the right; when it is the right which--based purely on factual data and information--does in fact carry the weight here. This isn't a partisan statement, it's just an objectively true statement.

Sourced here: https://www.cato.org/blog/politically-motivated-violence-rare-united-states

Is it distasteful to speak ill of the dead? Yeah. But it's also really hard to talk about a person who has died without talking about who/what they were in life. Perhaps the adage of "If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all" might hold true. But, I don't know. It really does seem to me that Kirk's death is being exploited here, not by people on the left, but by people on the right. Kirk is being raised up to martyr status, against an imaginary enemy of left-wing violent extremists.

When I say, personally, I am deeply anxious and, to a very real degree, afraid right now, it isn't anxiety or fear about leftwing bogeymen. It's rightwing extremists who might take Charlie Kirk's death, and escalate.

With the rising tide of fascism in this country under Donald Trump, I am legitimately fearful for what the rest of these four years will bring. I don't know what is going to happen, but all I see is a dark cloud covering this nation. When I say that I see Donald Trump and the MAGA movement, with the overwhelming support of the American Right, as a genuine danger to democracy, to human freedom and dignity--that isn't a violent statement or a call to violent action. It is a statement of mourning and trepidation, and is about my heart wanting to bend the knee before God and pray for peace.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[MrMoe]

Not necessarily. It's a similar argument to what Ezra Klein recently made talking to Russ Douthat, that violence and extremism can be mimetic, going beyond left-right political boundaries. If one side deals in demonization and dehumanizing rhetoric, as conservatives have been, that has wider, systemic and cultural effects.

Nothing you said proves what Destiny said wasn’t stochastic terrorism.

This is what Destiny said after the assassination attempt on Trump at a rally, where one man died:

“I would 100% immediately make fun of anyone who was killed at a Trump rally. [...] If you die at a rally, I'm going to make fun of you.”

And this is his comment during the 2020 George Floyd protests:

“The rioting needs to —- stop, and if that means like white redneck —— militia dudes out there mowing down —— protesters that think that they can torch buildings at ten p.m., then at this point they have my —— blessing...”

So it’s clear from these comments that Destiny has no problem with violence happening to groups of people he doesn’t like.

 

[MrMoe]

Do you support the Executive Branch, via the FCC, controlling political speech on our airways? Imagine the reaction if President Obama had ordered FOX News to drop Sean Hannity....or else?

What proof is there that the decision to suspend Jimmy Kimmel’s show was made by the Executive Branch via the FCC?

 

[MrMoe]

 

[RocksInMyHead]

View attachment 370322

Did the FCC threaten ABC and its affiliates over Roseanne's comments?