I don't think the suggestion of appeasement holds water. It seems to me that the UK government are playing a longer game, knowing exactly what they are doing in playing trump for the gullible fool that he is, with the result that getting a good trade deal out of it is likely, and with the bonus that trump is exposed to the world for playing at kings when in fact he is shown to be somewhat lower on the scale than a court jester.
Where he was skating on thin ice was stating as an irrefutable fact that the shooter was a far-right ideologue, at a time when the evidence for ANY political stance on his part was ambivalent, at best.
I don't believe he did that, what he said was:
"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."
That's speaking to the actions of the MAGA crowd, not necessarily stating anything about the shooter.
Meanwhile, Trump's clampdown on free speech is worrying, even though I don't think Kimmell's comments were in the best of taste or even funny.
I think he was well within the bounds of legitimate satire to point out that Trump really didn't seem to care much about Kirk's death at all and was more concerned with bragging about the White House renovations.
Where he was skating on thin ice was stating as an irrefutable fact that the shooter was a far-right ideologue, at a time when the evidence for ANY political stance on his part was ambivalent, at best.
Personally, though, I wouldn't call any of that a matter of good or bad taste.
The thing is, it would be legitimate for the network to decide he crossed a line, whether of honesty, decency, or taste. What's a problem is the US government demanding it and, worse, using unrelated regulatory powers to coerce it.
Where he was skating on thin ice was stating as an irrefutable fact that the shooter was a far-right ideologue, at a time when the evidence for ANY political stance on his part was ambivalent, at best.
I don't believe he did that, what he said was:
"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."
That's speaking to the actions of the MAGA crowd, not necessarily stating anything about the shooter.
Well, to me anyway, saying that someone is "desperately" trying to get people to believe something, strongly implies that there is little evidence for what it is he's trying to get people to believe. Hence the desperation, because he knows he's likely to fail due to the evidence being against him(*).
But that could just be me. If most people wouldn't interpret the statement that way(ie. there could be other reasons for the desperation besides a lack of proof), I'm happy to agree that everything Kimmel said was 100% legit.
(*) For example, if someone said "Stetson is desperately trying to convince his boss that he was anything but bombed out of his skull at the staff meeting yesterday", I would assume the speaker believes I was, in fact, bombed out of my skull.
Where he was skating on thin ice was stating as an irrefutable fact that the shooter was a far-right ideologue, at a time when the evidence for ANY political stance on his part was ambivalent, at best.
Though, is that any different from stating as an irrefutable fact that the shooter was a radical left ideologue, at a time when the evidence for ANY political stance on his part was ambivalent, at best? If it's OK for Trump to make that statement then there's no issue with others making an equivalent statement with a different "irrefutable fact"?
Where he was skating on thin ice was stating as an irrefutable fact that the shooter was a far-right ideologue, at a time when the evidence for ANY political stance on his part was ambivalent, at best.
Though, is that any different from stating as an irrefutable fact that the shooter was a radical left ideologue, at a time when the evidence for ANY political stance on his part was ambivalent, at best? If it's OK for Trump to make that statement then there's no issue with others making an equivalent statement with a different "irrefutable fact"?
Well, I never thought it was okay for Trump to say the guy was far-left, and Trump woulda been justly criticized for those statements.
But if someone came to me and asked "Since I'm refuting a guy who makes slapdash statements with little proof, do you think it's a good idea for me to make slapdash statements with no proof?", I would say, no, that's still not a good idea, from the perspective of your own interests as a debater.
Meanwhile, Trump's clampdown on free speech is worrying, even though I don't think Kimmell's comments were in the best of taste or even funny.
I think he was well within the bounds of legitimate satire to point out that Trump really didn't seem to care much about Kirk's death at all and was more concerned with bragging about the White House renovations.
Where he was skating on thin ice was stating as an irrefutable fact that the shooter was a far-right ideologue, at a time when the evidence for ANY political stance on his part was ambivalent, at best.
Personally, though, I wouldn't call any of that a matter of good or bad taste.
The thing is, it would be legitimate for the network to decide he crossed a line, whether of honesty, decency, or taste. What's a problem is the US government demanding it and, worse, using unrelated regulatory powers to coerce it.
Just to be clear, since it could be misunderstood, I was simply talking about the truth or falsehood of Kimmel's statements, not whether they justified the FCC's response. While I am not familiar with the FCC's normal standards for matters like this, it seems pretty likely that Carr was behaving in a totally arbitrary fashion, on behalf of Trump.
Where he was skating on thin ice was stating as an irrefutable fact that the shooter was a far-right ideologue, at a time when the evidence for ANY political stance on his part was ambivalent, at best.
I don't believe he did that, what he said was:
"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."
That's speaking to the actions of the MAGA crowd, not necessarily stating anything about the shooter.
Well, to me anyway, saying that someone is "desperately" trying to get people to believe something, strongly implies that there is little evidence for what it is he's trying to get people to believe. Hence the desperation, because he knows he's likely to fail due to the evidence being against him(*).
Even allowing for that inference—which to me seems like a bit of a stretch*—that’s still not “stating as irrefutable fact.” “Stating,” to my mind, requires actually explicitly saying something, not just implying it or allowing for an inference. Kimmel said nothing about Robinson’s actual motivation.
*I think it’s equally if not more reasonable to infer that Kimmel was saying the MAGA desperation was rooted in trying to present it as an open-and-shut case and score political points when the evidence had yet to be fully gathered and evaluated.
Kimmel makes his remarks concerning the alleged shooter of Kirk
FCC chair Benjamin Carr makes his threat of pulling the licenses of local stations who carry the ABC network. He threatens ABC stations by saying they can do it the easy way, or the government can do it the hard way.
Nextstar, who owns 28 local ABC stations pulls Kimmel off the air.
Sinclair Media a conservative group, which owns another 38 ABC stations. also pulls Kimmel off the air.
Both Nexstar and Sinclair have separate mergers and acquisitions pending that need government approval.
Disney/ABC bends the knee and suspends Kimmel indefinitely.
Subscribers to Disney+/ESPN/Hulu streaming services begin counseling their subscription services.
Other satirists come up with their own replies. Jon Stewart's reply was especially funny.
Eisner, the former head of Disney, calls the suspension of Kimmel boneheaded.
Ted Cruz sharply criticizes Carr for using a Goodfellows--mafioso--expression.
Disney/ABC in talks with Kimmel to reinstate his program.
Something tells me some people have had some sleepless nights this last week.
During the VietNam Police Action, Dick and Tom Smothers, launched some very biting satirical skits at Lyndon B Johnson, then president of the US. It got to the point where the Smothers Brothers were compelled to send a note of apology to Johnson. Johnson wrote in reply:
"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."
Does anyone still remember trump telling Hillary Clinton in 2016 that she'd better look out for those 2nd Amendment people? Apparently that was acceptable back then.
Kimmel makes his remarks concerning the alleged shooter of Kirk
FCC chair Benjamin Carr makes his threat of pulling the licenses of local stations who carry the ABC network. He threatens ABC stations by saying they can do it the easy way, or the government can do it the hard way.
Nextstar, who owns 28 local ABC stations pulls Kimmel off the air.
Sinclair Media a conservative group, which owns another 38 ABC stations. also pulls Kimmel off the air.
Both Nexstar and Sinclair have separate mergers and acquisitions pending that need government approval.
Disney/ABC bends the knee and suspends Kimmel indefinitely.
Subscribers to Disney+/ESPN/Hulu streaming services begin counseling their subscription services.
Other satirists come up with their own replies. Jon Stewart's reply was especially funny.
Eisner, the former head of Disney, calls the suspension of Kimmel boneheaded.
Ted Cruz sharply criticizes Carr for using a Goodfellows--mafioso--expression.
Disney/ABC in talks with Kimmel to reinstate his program.
Something tells me some people have had some sleepless nights this last week.
One of the things that anyone observing Trump's attempts to extort concessions out of various organizations should have noticed by now is that those who capitulate to his demands (e.g. law firm Paul Weiss, Columbia University, etc.) are usually faced with both reputational loss and further demands from Trump. Those who say "see you in court (Harvard University, the Wall Street Journal, law firms WilmerHale and Jenner & Block) have seen Trump back down. Of course, there's always the question of the degree to which the rich people running organizations that capitulate support Trump's agenda versus being cowed by Trump.
Does anyone still remember trump telling Hillary Clinton in 2016 that she'd better look out for those 2nd Amendment people? Apparently that was acceptable back then.
That was different, because Trump said it. It’s acceptable if he or his allies say it, but not acceptable if his enemies say it. At least, that’s how he sees it.
Does anyone still remember trump telling Hillary Clinton in 2016 that she'd better look out for those 2nd Amendment people? Apparently that was acceptable back then.
That was different, because Trump said it. It’s acceptable if he or his allies say it, but not acceptable if his enemies say it. At least, that’s how he sees it.
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
In the case of fascism the outgroups are in flux, and can bedrawn more narrowly at the whim of the Leader.
The American news is hard to take today. It seems that the sacrifice of Kirk's life has been so spectacularly successful - though unintended - for trump that you might wonder, "Who's next?"
I could almost see how it would benefit the Toddler in Chief if the killer hadn't been another right-wing nutter, but what good does it do him when it was basically one of their own?
Has anyone seen any expert comment on the alleged text exchange between the Kirk shooter and his roommate? I've seen a lot of mockery of the style, word choice, and apparent convenience of the exchange. My gut says the Trump admin would absolutely make up something like that, but that they'd absolutely get caught doing it almost instantly. Keeping it covert requires more competence than they've thus far displayed.
Has anyone seen any expert comment on the alleged text exchange between the Kirk shooter and his roommate? I've seen a lot of mockery of the style, word choice, and apparent convenience of the exchange. My gut says the Trump admin would absolutely make up something like that, but that they'd absolutely get caught doing it almost instantly. Keeping it covert requires more competence than they've thus far displayed.
It would also involve lots of coordination and collusion between people in the administration and local law enforcement and local elected officials, who are not part of the administration.
I’m not saying that couldn’t happen. But I do think those are circumstances that make keeping it covert even more of a challenge.
I'm not enough of a conspiracy theorist to think that the MAGA lot made it all up. Which doesn't let them off the hook though as they foster the kind of environment where screwballs have ready access to firearms.
I've not seen today's news or any developments but from what I've read so far the killer doesn't seem to be one of 'theirs' but neither does he represent any coherent ideology of any recognisably left/right kind.
That's worrying in and of itself as it means the MAGA crowd are labelling anyone who doesn't agree with them as potential killers or terrorists.
It's another indication of how dangerously polarised things have become.
I think Kimmel's satirical cements about Trump's reaction to the shooting - 'Look at the White House renovations' - was entirely accurate and legitimate.
His claim that the killer was one of MAGA's 'own' was ill-judged I think but hardly worthy of the reaction it's received from the US right.
As has been said, Trump joked about Hilary Clinton having to watch out for the 2nd Amendment crowd.
What worries me is that although I've seen some calls for calm, for cool heads and for people to turn off their devices, touch the grass, actually talk to their neighbours and do something worthwhile in their community (which I'm sure many Americans already do), the rhetoric from both sides seems to be turning things up to boiling point.
I could almost see how it would benefit the Toddler in Chief if the killer hadn't been another right-wing nutter, but what good does it do him when it was basically one of their own?
It wasn't. We've got to let go of this idea. It was someone from a right wing background, sure, but there's too much other detail that doesn't fit that narrative. People do not always maintain the faith of their fathers, as it were, and there's much to suggest this is the case here.
I could almost see how it would benefit the Toddler in Chief if the killer hadn't been another right-wing nutter, but what good does it do him when it was basically one of their own?
It wasn't. We've got to let go of this idea. It was someone from a right wing background, sure, but there's too much other detail that doesn't fit that narrative. People do not always maintain the faith of their fathers, as it were, and there's much to suggest this is the case here.
I could almost see how it would benefit the Toddler in Chief if the killer hadn't been another right-wing nutter, but what good does it do him when it was basically one of their own?
It wasn't. We've got to let go of this idea. It was someone from a right wing background, sure, but there's too much other detail that doesn't fit that narrative. People do not always maintain the faith of their fathers, as it were, and there's much to suggest this is the case here.
Apart from the faith in guns, of course.
The myth of redemptive violence may be stronger on the right but is found across the political spectrum. Plenty of left wing LGBT+ on my FB feed talking about tooling up.
I could almost see how it would benefit the Toddler in Chief if the killer hadn't been another right-wing nutter, but what good does it do him when it was basically one of their own?
It wasn't. We've got to let go of this idea. It was someone from a right wing background, sure, but there's too much other detail that doesn't fit that narrative.
On the other hand there's probably a majority of people with politics that are in some level incoherent (easily verified by talking to a set of people who aren't particularly politically engaged for any length of time). This can be doubly so for younger people, as they can glom onto strange combinations of things as part of identity formation.
[Kimmel’s] claim that the killer was one of MAGA's 'own' was ill-judged I think but hardly worthy of the reaction it's received from the US right.
Again, Kimmel didn’t actually claim that Robinson was MAGA’s or the far right’s own. What he said was
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.
As @chrisstiles noted, this was a comment about the actions and the spin of the MAGA crowd, not about the actions or motivations of Robinson. Kimmel may have assumed it was likely that reports that Robinson had right wing motivations would prove correct, but he didn’t actual say that.
Has anyone seen any expert comment on the alleged text exchange between the Kirk shooter and his roommate? I've seen a lot of mockery of the style, word choice, and apparent convenience of the exchange. My gut says the Trump admin would absolutely make up something like that, but that they'd absolutely get caught doing it almost instantly. Keeping it covert requires more competence than they've thus far displayed.
It would also involve lots of coordination and collusion between people in the administration and local law enforcement and local elected officials, who are not part of the administration.
I’m not saying that couldn’t happen. But I do think those are circumstances that make keeping it covert even more of a challenge.
I also think there was a bit of anti-Gen Z prejudice in some of the claims made about the note and how young people today don't write that coherently.
Even if that's true, if Robinson was writing to his beloved about an event that was sure to drastically alter their relationship and lives, he might use a somewhat different style than if he was just lulzing it up with his gamer buddies on the internet.
Anyway. Empathy for anyone who's bought Tylenol stock recently.
He's given the makers of Tylenol a defence. If he'd said 'acetaminophen', instead of a specific brand, he'd have had a better chance. (Possibly the studies said that, but I only heard the brand name in the announcements).
I could almost see how it would benefit the Toddler in Chief if the killer hadn't been another right-wing nutter, but what good does it do him when it was basically one of their own?
It wasn't. We've got to let go of this idea. It was someone from a right wing background, sure, but there's too much other detail that doesn't fit that narrative. People do not always maintain the faith of their fathers, as it were, and there's much to suggest this is the case here.
Agree with @KarlLB . "Zeal of the convert" ISTM, sadly.
I could almost see how it would benefit the Toddler in Chief if the killer hadn't been another right-wing nutter, but what good does it do him when it was basically one of their own?
It wasn't. We've got to let go of this idea. It was someone from a right wing background, sure, but there's too much other detail that doesn't fit that narrative. People do not always maintain the faith of their fathers, as it were, and there's much to suggest this is the case here.
Agree with @KarlLB . "Zeal of the convert" ISTM, sadly.
Ehh, I'm still going with "Zeal of the gaming-addled gun-freak looking to re-enact a first-person shooter fantasy in the real world and using politics to provide the neccessary framework of good guys vs. bad guys."
Not that I doubt Robinson had sincere objections to Kirk's opinions, just that that wasn't his primary motivation.
Aaaand...
For those who like to follow conspiracy theories, the antisemitic lunatic Candace Owens(*) is hellbent on preaching the idea that Kirk was taken out for deviating from the standard pro-Israel line among conservatives. She has been abetted in this crusade by Megyn Kelly and Tucker Carlson, who fall just slightly short of saying Netanyahu is the culprit, but circle around the idea with stuff like "Gee, isn't it interesting that Kirk had recently started criticizing Israel's conduct in Gaza. Hmm, why isn't anyone talking about that?"
The New York Post had a video of Carlson's speech at Kirk's funeral, stating that he "insinuated" that Israel was behind the killing. Though I think his description of Christ's killers being "a bunch of guys sitting in a room eating hummus" might have been more a reference to middle-eastern culture generally, not Jews specifically.
(*) Her father-in-law is Baron Farmer, who is apparently some big player in right-wing Christian circles in the UK. But I gather that unlike his DIL, he's pro-Israel.
Anyway. Empathy for anyone who's bought Tylenol stock recently.
He's given the makers of Tylenol a defence. If he'd said 'acetaminophen', instead of a specific brand, he'd have had a better chance. (Possibly the studies said that, but I only heard the brand name in the announcements).
There's video of Trump trying to pronounce "acetaminophen" - it did not go well.
[Kimmel’s] claim that the killer was one of MAGA's 'own' was ill-judged I think but hardly worthy of the reaction it's received from the US right.
Again, Kimmel didn’t actually claim that Robinson was MAGA’s or the far right’s own. What he said was
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.
As @chrisstiles noted, this was a comment about the actions and the spin of the MAGA crowd, not about the actions or motivations of Robinson. Kimmel may have assumed it was likely that reports that Robinson had right wing motivations would prove correct, but he didn’t actual say that.
Well, 'anything other than one of them' sounds too me that he was saying that Robinson was one of the MAGA crowd and motivated by their ideology.
What have I missed?
I'm not defending the MAGA response though. They seem to be going after anyone who doesn't agree with them and things appear to be heading back in a McCarthyite direction.
[Kimmel’s] claim that the killer was one of MAGA's 'own' was ill-judged I think but hardly worthy of the reaction it's received from the US right.
Again, Kimmel didn’t actually claim that Robinson was MAGA’s or the far right’s own. What he said was
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.
As @chrisstiles noted, this was a comment about the actions and the spin of the MAGA crowd, not about the actions or motivations of Robinson. Kimmel may have assumed it was likely that reports that Robinson had right wing motivations would prove correct, but he didn’t actual say that.
Well, 'anything other than one of them' sounds too me that he was saying that Robinson was one of the MAGA crowd and motivated by their ideology.
What have I missed?
You’re missing that he wasn’t talking directly about Robinson’s motivations at all.
He was talking about the MAGA response to the killing of Charlie Kirk—shooting down at every chance possible even the merest hint of a suggestion that the right or far right (or Trump) might bear even the merest sliver of responsibility for the state of political polarization and the way in which talking about violence against “the other side” has been normalized, and insisting that the only “side” that bears the responsibility for the current atmosphere is the “violent radical left.” In this conversation, “trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them” is a proxy for “trying to characterize our current problems as anyone’s fault but there’s.”
Could he have said it better? Sure. But that, I think, is what he intended to communicate.
And the MAGA folks, true to his accusation about their spin, tried to paint it as him talking about whose “side” Robinson was on, ignoring Kimmel’s broader charge against them. They’re trying to divert attention from any honest look at the forest by trying to focus just on the one tree.
Do you think someone should tell the President that if you moan and whine about somebody possibly deliberately stopping the escalator when you get on it, it just makes you look ridiculous?
Do you think someone should tell the President that if you moan and whine about somebody possibly deliberately stopping the escalator when you get on it, it just makes you look ridiculous?
UNITED NATIONS, Sept 23 (Reuters) - The United Nations believes it has solved the mystery of why an escalator abruptly stopped shortly after U.S. President Donald Trump stepped onto it on Tuesday - his videographer may have accidentally triggered a safety mechanism.
Trump jokingly complained about the incident during his speech to world leaders earlier on Tuesday after the teleprompter also didn't work.
[Kimmel’s] claim that the killer was one of MAGA's 'own' was ill-judged I think but hardly worthy of the reaction it's received from the US right.
Again, Kimmel didn’t actually claim that Robinson was MAGA’s or the far right’s own. What he said was
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.
As @chrisstiles noted, this was a comment about the actions and the spin of the MAGA crowd, not about the actions or motivations of Robinson. Kimmel may have assumed it was likely that reports that Robinson had right wing motivations would prove correct, but he didn’t actual say that.
Well, 'anything other than one of them' sounds too me that he was saying that Robinson was one of the MAGA crowd and motivated by their ideology.
What have I missed?
You’re missing that he wasn’t talking directly about Robinson’s motivations at all.
He was talking about the MAGA response to the killing of Charlie Kirk—shooting down at every chance possible even the merest hint of a suggestion that the right or far right (or Trump) might bear even the merest sliver of responsibility for the state of political polarization and the way in which talking about violence against “the other side” has been normalized, and insisting that the only “side” that bears the responsibility for the current atmosphere is the “violent radical left.” In this conversation, “trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them” is a proxy for “trying to characterize our current problems as anyone’s fault but there’s.”
Could he have said it better? Sure. But that, I think, is what he intended to communicate.
And the MAGA folks, true to his accusation about their spin, tried to paint it as him talking about whose “side” Robinson was on, ignoring Kimmel’s broader charge against them. They’re trying to divert attention from any honest look at the forest by trying to focus just on the one tree.
Ok. I can see what you are getting at now. I think he could have made that point more clearly though, as you say.
Comments
I don't believe he did that, what he said was:
"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."
That's speaking to the actions of the MAGA crowd, not necessarily stating anything about the shooter.
The thing is, it would be legitimate for the network to decide he crossed a line, whether of honesty, decency, or taste. What's a problem is the US government demanding it and, worse, using unrelated regulatory powers to coerce it.
Well, to me anyway, saying that someone is "desperately" trying to get people to believe something, strongly implies that there is little evidence for what it is he's trying to get people to believe. Hence the desperation, because he knows he's likely to fail due to the evidence being against him(*).
But that could just be me. If most people wouldn't interpret the statement that way(ie. there could be other reasons for the desperation besides a lack of proof), I'm happy to agree that everything Kimmel said was 100% legit.
(*) For example, if someone said "Stetson is desperately trying to convince his boss that he was anything but bombed out of his skull at the staff meeting yesterday", I would assume the speaker believes I was, in fact, bombed out of my skull.
Well, I never thought it was okay for Trump to say the guy was far-left, and Trump woulda been justly criticized for those statements.
But if someone came to me and asked "Since I'm refuting a guy who makes slapdash statements with little proof, do you think it's a good idea for me to make slapdash statements with no proof?", I would say, no, that's still not a good idea, from the perspective of your own interests as a debater.
Just to be clear, since it could be misunderstood, I was simply talking about the truth or falsehood of Kimmel's statements, not whether they justified the FCC's response. While I am not familiar with the FCC's normal standards for matters like this, it seems pretty likely that Carr was behaving in a totally arbitrary fashion, on behalf of Trump.
*I think it’s equally if not more reasonable to infer that Kimmel was saying the MAGA desperation was rooted in trying to present it as an open-and-shut case and score political points when the evidence had yet to be fully gathered and evaluated.
Fair enough on "stating" as inappropriate for an inference, even a strong one.
Kimmel makes his remarks concerning the alleged shooter of Kirk
FCC chair Benjamin Carr makes his threat of pulling the licenses of local stations who carry the ABC network. He threatens ABC stations by saying they can do it the easy way, or the government can do it the hard way.
Nextstar, who owns 28 local ABC stations pulls Kimmel off the air.
Sinclair Media a conservative group, which owns another 38 ABC stations. also pulls Kimmel off the air.
Both Nexstar and Sinclair have separate mergers and acquisitions pending that need government approval.
Disney/ABC bends the knee and suspends Kimmel indefinitely.
Subscribers to Disney+/ESPN/Hulu streaming services begin counseling their subscription services.
Other satirists come up with their own replies. Jon Stewart's reply was especially funny.
Eisner, the former head of Disney, calls the suspension of Kimmel boneheaded.
Ted Cruz sharply criticizes Carr for using a Goodfellows--mafioso--expression.
Disney/ABC in talks with Kimmel to reinstate his program.
Something tells me some people have had some sleepless nights this last week.
During the VietNam Police Action, Dick and Tom Smothers, launched some very biting satirical skits at Lyndon B Johnson, then president of the US. It got to the point where the Smothers Brothers were compelled to send a note of apology to Johnson. Johnson wrote in reply:
Someone has no sense of humor.
One of the things that anyone observing Trump's attempts to extort concessions out of various organizations should have noticed by now is that those who capitulate to his demands (e.g. law firm Paul Weiss, Columbia University, etc.) are usually faced with both reputational loss and further demands from Trump. Those who say "see you in court (Harvard University, the Wall Street Journal, law firms WilmerHale and Jenner & Block) have seen Trump back down. Of course, there's always the question of the degree to which the rich people running organizations that capitulate support Trump's agenda versus being cowed by Trump.
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
In the case of fascism the outgroups are in flux, and can bedrawn more narrowly at the whim of the Leader.
I’m not saying that couldn’t happen. But I do think those are circumstances that make keeping it covert even more of a challenge.
I've not seen today's news or any developments but from what I've read so far the killer doesn't seem to be one of 'theirs' but neither does he represent any coherent ideology of any recognisably left/right kind.
That's worrying in and of itself as it means the MAGA crowd are labelling anyone who doesn't agree with them as potential killers or terrorists.
It's another indication of how dangerously polarised things have become.
I think Kimmel's satirical cements about Trump's reaction to the shooting - 'Look at the White House renovations' - was entirely accurate and legitimate.
His claim that the killer was one of MAGA's 'own' was ill-judged I think but hardly worthy of the reaction it's received from the US right.
As has been said, Trump joked about Hilary Clinton having to watch out for the 2nd Amendment crowd.
What worries me is that although I've seen some calls for calm, for cool heads and for people to turn off their devices, touch the grass, actually talk to their neighbours and do something worthwhile in their community (which I'm sure many Americans already do), the rhetoric from both sides seems to be turning things up to boiling point.
That doesn't auger well.
It wasn't. We've got to let go of this idea. It was someone from a right wing background, sure, but there's too much other detail that doesn't fit that narrative. People do not always maintain the faith of their fathers, as it were, and there's much to suggest this is the case here.
Apart from the faith in guns, of course.
The myth of redemptive violence may be stronger on the right but is found across the political spectrum. Plenty of left wing LGBT+ on my FB feed talking about tooling up.
On the other hand there's probably a majority of people with politics that are in some level incoherent (easily verified by talking to a set of people who aren't particularly politically engaged for any length of time). This can be doubly so for younger people, as they can glom onto strange combinations of things as part of identity formation.
As @chrisstiles noted, this was a comment about the actions and the spin of the MAGA crowd, not about the actions or motivations of Robinson. Kimmel may have assumed it was likely that reports that Robinson had right wing motivations would prove correct, but he didn’t actual say that.
I also think there was a bit of anti-Gen Z prejudice in some of the claims made about the note and how young people today don't write that coherently.
Even if that's true, if Robinson was writing to his beloved about an event that was sure to drastically alter their relationship and lives, he might use a somewhat different style than if he was just lulzing it up with his gamer buddies on the internet.
God don't get me started on this complete capitulation to pseudo-science. The man makes Terry Fuckwit look like Albert fucking Einstein.
He's given the makers of Tylenol a defence. If he'd said 'acetaminophen', instead of a specific brand, he'd have had a better chance. (Possibly the studies said that, but I only heard the brand name in the announcements).
He only said he was joking after he had been called on the statement after the event. It came over as serious at the time.
Who does "Terry Fuckwit" refer to?
Yeah, but if Sinclair continues barring Kimmel from its ABC-affiliate stations, that somewhat qualifies ABC's reinstating of Kimmel.
That being said, I don't know what percentage of ABC's affiliates are owned by Sinclair.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Fuckwitt
Agree with @KarlLB . "Zeal of the convert" ISTM, sadly.
Ehh, I'm still going with "Zeal of the gaming-addled gun-freak looking to re-enact a first-person shooter fantasy in the real world and using politics to provide the neccessary framework of good guys vs. bad guys."
Not that I doubt Robinson had sincere objections to Kirk's opinions, just that that wasn't his primary motivation.
Aaaand...
For those who like to follow conspiracy theories, the antisemitic lunatic Candace Owens(*) is hellbent on preaching the idea that Kirk was taken out for deviating from the standard pro-Israel line among conservatives. She has been abetted in this crusade by Megyn Kelly and Tucker Carlson, who fall just slightly short of saying Netanyahu is the culprit, but circle around the idea with stuff like "Gee, isn't it interesting that Kirk had recently started criticizing Israel's conduct in Gaza. Hmm, why isn't anyone talking about that?"
The New York Post had a video of Carlson's speech at Kirk's funeral, stating that he "insinuated" that Israel was behind the killing. Though I think his description of Christ's killers being "a bunch of guys sitting in a room eating hummus" might have been more a reference to middle-eastern culture generally, not Jews specifically.
(*) Her father-in-law is Baron Farmer, who is apparently some big player in right-wing Christian circles in the UK. But I gather that unlike his DIL, he's pro-Israel.
There's video of Trump trying to pronounce "acetaminophen" - it did not go well.
The NY Times says Sinclair and Nexstar, which is also pre-empting Kimmel, together own 20% of the local ABC affiliates.
However do the newscasters report on that with a straight face?
To be fair it's the UN General Assembly, they're used to rants from deranged autocrats, and to diplomatically ignoring them.
Well, 'anything other than one of them' sounds too me that he was saying that Robinson was one of the MAGA crowd and motivated by their ideology.
What have I missed?
I'm not defending the MAGA response though. They seem to be going after anyone who doesn't agree with them and things appear to be heading back in a McCarthyite direction.
He was talking about the MAGA response to the killing of Charlie Kirk—shooting down at every chance possible even the merest hint of a suggestion that the right or far right (or Trump) might bear even the merest sliver of responsibility for the state of political polarization and the way in which talking about violence against “the other side” has been normalized, and insisting that the only “side” that bears the responsibility for the current atmosphere is the “violent radical left.” In this conversation, “trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them” is a proxy for “trying to characterize our current problems as anyone’s fault but there’s.”
Could he have said it better? Sure. But that, I think, is what he intended to communicate.
And the MAGA folks, true to his accusation about their spin, tried to paint it as him talking about whose “side” Robinson was on, ignoring Kimmel’s broader charge against them. They’re trying to divert attention from any honest look at the forest by trying to focus just on the one tree.
Ok. I can see what you are getting at now. I think he could have made that point more clearly though, as you say.
Of course, Trump and MAGA are not happy.