Kimmel is Back

[BPPLEE]

Jimmy Kimmel Did Not Say Exactly What You Think He Said

“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.”

Kimmel doesn’t actually say “this kid” was “one of them.” You could read it a different way: Robinson wasn’t MAGA, and therefore MAGA is out there trying to characterize him as something else. Or even: Who knows if Robinson was or wasn’t MAGA, either way MAGA is trying to score points based on his politics.

Kimmel himself would seem to be of this opinion. In Hollywood Reporter‘s latest story detailing how the suspension went down behind the scenes, Kimmel is said to have been “defending what he said [as] being grossly mischaracterized by a certain group of people.”

No, he doesn’t actually say it, he implies it.

 

[Servus]

Jimmy Kimmel Did Not Say Exactly What You Think He Said

“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.”

Kimmel doesn’t actually say “this kid” was “one of them.” You could read it a different way: Robinson wasn’t MAGA, and therefore MAGA is out there trying to characterize him as something else. Or even: Who knows if Robinson was or wasn’t MAGA, either way MAGA is trying to score points based on his politics.

Kimmel himself would seem to be of this opinion. In Hollywood Reporter‘s latest story detailing how the suspension went down behind the scenes, Kimmel is said to have been “defending what he said [as] being grossly mischaracterized by a certain group of people.”

He said something wrong and got suspended for a few days. No big deal.

 

[seeking.IAM]

Yes,! That’s what he did. He implied that Kirk’s assassin was one of the MAGA faithful

POTUS says more falsehoods than this every day. I think it's more than a bit odd that the right wants to muzzle a talk show host for one comment while it turns its collective head over many more falsehoods and untoward statements made by POTUS. That's a real head scratcher.

 

[BPPLEE]

POTUS says more falsehoods than this every day. I think it's more than a bit odd that the right wants to muzzle a talk show host for one comment while it turns its collective head over many more falsehoods and untoward statements made by POTUS. That's a real head scratcher.

You’ve got the wrong person. I think Kimmel should be able to say anything he wants. And I think the broadcasters can choose whether or not to air it.

 

[Servus]

POTUS says more falsehoods than this every day. I think it's more than a bit odd that the right wants to muzzle a talk show host for one comment while it turns its collective head over many more falsehoods and untoward statements made by POTUS. That's a real head scratcher.

Disney, Sinclair and Nexstar are the ones who did the muzzling.

 

[childeye 2]

Sorry, the analogy doesn't work with politics.

It's not an analogy; it's just the way a left/right dichotomy works. The objective view is at the center of two opposing subjective equally valid views.
See these dichotomies --> Democracy/autocracy, worker/employer, consumer/supplier, liberal/conservative. <-- These are all political left/right dichotomies, and they all work the same way; The objective view is at the center of two opposing subjective equally valid views.

 

[BPPLEE]

It's not an analogy; it's just the way a left/right dichotomy works. The objective view is at the center of two opposing subjective equally valid views.
See these dichotomies --> Democracy/autocracy, worker/employer, consumer/supplier, liberal/conservative. <-- These are all political left/right dichotomies, and they all work the same way; The objective view is at the center of two opposing subjective equally valid views.

I have doubts that they are equally valid views when it comes to politics

 

[Servus]

One thing that stood out in Kimmel's comeback monologe was the lack of an apology which is really all that was being asked of him.

TPUSA responds:

 

[childeye 2]

One thing that stood out in Kimmel's comeback monologe was the lack of an apology which is really all that was being asked of him.

TPUSA responds:

Kimmel showed the Spirit of Christ when loving others as himself. His words expressed understanding and forgiveness for those who had misunderstood him and slandered him.

Some people thought Kimmel had expressed that Robinson was MAGA when Kimmel didn't actually say that nor imply it. And because they were mistaken some of these people called him a liar, without any proof. <--- That is slander. Devil=accuser/slanderer.

I'm on the record saying that Kimmel was probably being misunderstood and that slander is wrong. In my experience, a cynical slanderer will probably not apologize for their slander, because due to their cynical nature they probably won't be convinced that Kimmel didn't mean what they claim he meant. Even if Kimmel says he had been misunderstood, they'll probably just call him a liar because he's covering up when saying he was misunderstood. Even if Kimmel were to apologize, they would probably say he did it to keep his job and didn't really mean it. The spirit of the devil projects its own lack of faith onto others through cynicism.

Having said that, here is what Kimmel said about it, "I have many friends and family members on the other side who I love and remain close to, even though we don't agree on politics at all. I don't think the murderer who shot Charlie Kirk represents anyone. This was a sick person who believed violence was a solution, and it isn't, ever."

More context:
"I posted a message on Instagram on the day he was killed, sending love to his family and asking for compassion. And I meant it. I still do. Nor was it my intention to blame any specific group for the actions of what, it was obviously a deeply disturbed individual. That was really the opposite of the point I was trying to make".

"But I understand that to some that felt either ill-timed or unclear or maybe both. And for those who think I did, point a finger, I get why you’re upset. If the situation was reversed, there’s a good chance I’d have felt the same way".

 

[childeye 2]

I have doubts that they are equally valid views when it comes to politics

I appreciate the candor. I can see that's the problem. Do you realize that liberal implies 'for change' and conservative implies 'stay the same'?

And do you see that these --> 'for change/against change' <- these are subjective views? --> In other words, do you see that people have their own individual subjective opinions and beliefs about when and why we as a country should change direction and when and why we shouldn't?

 

[BPPLEE]

I appreciate the candor. I can see that's the problem. Do you realize that liberal implies 'for change' and conservative implies 'stay the same'?

And do you see that these --> 'for change/against change' <- these are subjective views? --> In other words, do you see that people have their own individual subjective opinions and beliefs about when and why we as a country should change direction and when and why we shouldn't?

That’s all very interesting

 

[childeye 2]

That’s all very interesting

Okay. But I still need you to answer this question, --> Do you see why these --> Liberal/conservative <-- are both considered subjective views, and not objective views? l will get to what 'equally valid' means, but in order to do that I need to know that you truly do understand why they are both subjective views and not objective views.

 

[BPPLEE]

Okay. But I still need you to answer this question, --> Do you see why these --> Liberal/conservative <-- are both considered subjective views, and not objective views? l will get to what 'equally valid' means, but in order to do that I need to know that you truly do understand why they are both subjective views and not objective views.

When it comes to politics, the right thinks the left is wrong.
The left thinks the right is evil.
That's the difference

 

[childeye 2]

When it comes to politics, the right thinks the left is wrong.

You talk as if the terms left and right represent two binary personalities rather than actual substantive opposing views with valid interests to a community. I remind you that the ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy.

I got news for you, both sides think they're right.

The left thinks the right is evil.

So, you're saying that you think that the left thinks they are the side of 'goodness'?
And the right side is the 'evil' side of a left/right dichotomy? --> Good/evil

I've got news for you, both sides think they're good.

That's the difference

Do you actually believe that nonsense? None of that is of the Spirit of God, it's all lies you're believing and repeating.
The left/right dichotomy is meant for analytics, not accusation and slander. Devil=accuser/slanderer

 

[BPPLEE]

Do you actually believe that? None of that is the Spirit of God. The left/right dichotomy is meant for analytics, not accusation and slander.

Well there is a good portion of the right that thinks that abortion and trans ideology are evil, and our president has spouted off before but I still think there’s more of it on the left.
It sounds like the left/right dichotomy doesn’t function in reality

 

[childeye 2]

Well there is a good portion of the right that thinks that abortion and trans ideology are evil...,

Yes, but that doesn't qualify as a left/right dichotomy. So don't be deceived, sin entered into all of mankind. Liberals and conservatives alike.

..., and our president has spouted off before but I still think there’s more of it on the left.

More what? Evil? Like I said, that's not a valid use of a left/right dichotomy. The left/right dichotomy is for analytics between substantive views with valid interests to a society, not back and forth accusations and slander.

It sounds like the left/right dichotomy doesn’t function in reality

Like I said above, a left/right dichotomy is for analytics, and it functions as designed when it's used properly. What you're describing is propaganda.

 

[BPPLEE]

That doesn't qualify as a left/right dichotomy. So don't be deceived, sin entered into all of mankind. Liberals and conservatives alike.

More what? Evil? Like I said, that's not a valid use of a left/right dichotomy. The left/right dichotomy is for analytics between substantive views with valid interests to a society, not accusations and slander.

Like I said above, a left/right dichotomy is for analytics, and it functions as designed when it's used properly. What you're describing is propaganda.

No, I wasn’t saying there is more evil on the left, I meant more of the left think that the other side is evil

 

[childeye 2]

No, I wasn’t saying there is more evil on the left, I meant more of the left think that the other side is evil

Up front I'm going to state that any reasoning based on something false but believed to be true, ends in a contradiction.

Do you think it's eviler of the left to think the right is eviler since the right would think less evil of the left than they think of the right? <--- See the contradiction?

 

[BPPLEE]

Up front I'm going to state that any reasoning based on something false but believed to be true, ends in a contradiction.

Now do you think it's eviler of the left to think the right is eviler, because the right thinks the left is less evil than the right? <--- See the contradiction?

No

 

[childeye 2]

No

BPPLEE said:
"No, I wasn’t saying there is more evil on the left, I meant more of the left think that the other side is evil"

Do you think the "more" of the left is eviler than the right for thinking that the right is evil?

If you say YES to the above question, then your statement ends in a contradiction since you claimed that you were not saying there is more evil on the left.

If you say NO to the above question, then the "more" of the left would be right instead of wrong for thinking that the right is evil.

I hope you can see that this dichotomy --> the right is evil/the right is right <--is not representing two valid opposing policies and therefore it is not a valid left/right political dichotomy. It's not even a valid binary dichotomy.


The right is evil/the right is right <-- This is propaganda that only dumb people would accept as a reasonable representation of left/right policy differences.