Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
He also said that "Kimmel will be next" - which means that he will totally use the political plants in the oversight agencies and courts to ensure that the billionaire owners of the media
a) Play ball and remove dissonant voices b) See their empires and net-worth burn to the ground as their businesscase evaporates with a pulled FCC license and courts that are stacked with pro-Trump them up to SCOTUS that will never grant them anything back.
The USA weren't supposed to have INDEPENDENT agencies to be in full control of the government, a congress that would diminish it's own power every time it's getting asked, and stacked courts that bend the law aroudn trump.. with formalities if they have to.
It's pure fascism.
Which you are not allowed to say, say the Trump syccophants, because that is mean and untrue (Speaker Johnson)
On September 19 2025 08:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: The Jimmy Kimmel situation just got way more insane:
These are the demands ABC-affiliate Sinclair is making to air Jimmy Kimmel again
The company said in a press release that ABC's decision to suspend "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" was "not enough" and included some demands if it were to ever air the show again:
A "direct apology" from Kimmel to Kirk's family. A "meaningful" donation to Kirk's family and his organization, Turning Point USA. Appropriate steps taken to "uphold the standards expected of a national broadcast platform."
"Sinclair will not lift the suspension of 'Jimmy Kimmel Live!' on our stations until formal discussions are held with ABC regarding the network's commitment to professionalism and accountability," the company said.
The broadcaster said it would air a special "in remembrance" of Kirk during Kimmel's usual timeslot on Friday.
That the chair of the FCC is also interjecting in the manner they are, hm.
A prominent Fox host can openly advocate for the involuntary euthanasia of folks with mental health issues, or the homeless, but Kimmel merely said he felt people were weaponising Kirk’s death.
Who’s still on the air?
Agreed, and I'd take it one step further: Not only were Kimmel's comments completely innocuous, but they weren't even aimed at Charlie Kirk. Kimmel very clearly criticized MAGA's and Trump's response to Kirk's death, but didn't once dismiss Kirk in any sort of negative way. Kimmel didn't say Kirk was a bad person (which still would have been an accurate understatement), or that Kirk used to have some controversial opinions (accurate understatement #2), or anything about Kirk's agenda or family or anything else that could have been criticized as tone deaf / not the right time to bring up. Kimmel's MAGA/Trump criticism calls out just how self-serving MAGA/Trump has been for using Kirk's death for their own opportunistic purposes; Kimmel mocked MAGA/Trump for trying to score political points and not being respectful or sincere about grieving for Kirk:
On September 18 2025 12:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I think this is the full extent of Kimmel's talk about Kirk (which was mostly making fun of Trump):
So ultimately, Kimmel was actually cancelled for mocking Trump, not for saying anything bad about Charlie Kirk.
On September 19 2025 15:25 maybenexttime wrote: Maybe the solution to the algorithms would be banning online advertising. They are tailored towards increasing engagement because that increases ad revenue. Take away the incentive and maybe things go back to how they used to be.
Even without ads you would get the same thing. 'We' want to see things we agree with. The algorithm is doing exactly what we want it to do, feed us the thing we want to be engaging with. 'We' want to find echo chambers because most people enjoy being told what they already know and having their opinions reinforced as the 'correct' one.
Our brains are not designed to handle this ease of access to mass media. And unfortunately I have no idea how we would go about fixing that. As with basically everything the problem is humanity itself.
On September 19 2025 18:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:So ultimately, Kimmel was actually cancelled for mocking Trump, not for saying anything bad about Charlie Kirk.
Because Trump doesn't give a shit about Charlie Kirk, Trump doesn't give a shit about anyone but Trump. And Kimmel was, on multiple occasions, mean to Trump. So Kimmel has to go. Same deal with Stephen Colbert, cancelled for being mean to Trump.
And if the opportunity presents itself Trump would love to do the same to John Oliver, or any other remotely influential person that has ever said anything bad about him.
Donald Trump is not only deeply insincere, a draft dodger, a business fraud, a tax dodger, paying for sex probably with teenagers... but is also a petty HOA-Karen that will kill your dog with a lawn mower if you have forgotten her 23rd anniverary in the neighbourhood.
And then claim the hispanic gardener did it to eat the dog.
On September 19 2025 08:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: The Jimmy Kimmel situation just got way more insane:
These are the demands ABC-affiliate Sinclair is making to air Jimmy Kimmel again
The company said in a press release that ABC's decision to suspend "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" was "not enough" and included some demands if it were to ever air the show again:
A "direct apology" from Kimmel to Kirk's family. A "meaningful" donation to Kirk's family and his organization, Turning Point USA. Appropriate steps taken to "uphold the standards expected of a national broadcast platform."
"Sinclair will not lift the suspension of 'Jimmy Kimmel Live!' on our stations until formal discussions are held with ABC regarding the network's commitment to professionalism and accountability," the company said.
The broadcaster said it would air a special "in remembrance" of Kirk during Kimmel's usual timeslot on Friday.
That the chair of the FCC is also interjecting in the manner they are, hm.
A prominent Fox host can openly advocate for the involuntary euthanasia of folks with mental health issues, or the homeless, but Kimmel merely said he felt people were weaponising Kirk’s death.
Who’s still on the air?
Agreed, and I'd take it one step further: Not only were Kimmel's comments completely innocuous, but they weren't even aimed at Charlie Kirk. Kimmel very clearly criticized MAGA's and Trump's response to Kirk's death, but didn't once dismiss Kirk in any sort of negative way. Kimmel didn't say Kirk was a bad person (which still would have been an accurate understatement), or that Kirk used to have some controversial opinions (accurate understatement #2), or anything about Kirk's agenda or family or anything else that could have been criticized as tone deaf / not the right time to bring up. Kimmel's MAGA/Trump criticism calls out just how self-serving MAGA/Trump has been for using Kirk's death for their own opportunistic purposes; Kimmel mocked MAGA/Trump for trying to score political points and not being respectful or sincere about grieving for Kirk:
On September 18 2025 12:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I think this is the full extent of Kimmel's talk about Kirk (which was mostly making fun of Trump): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLXFdP3t-XU
So ultimately, Kimmel was actually cancelled for mocking Trump, not for saying anything bad about Charlie Kirk.
Kimmel said that the killer was MAGA and not a leftist. He also vaguely talked about Trump wanting to make people upset at something other than the Epstein case. If this had been a right-winger talking about a political assassination of a prominent person on the left, the media would have called it "conspiracy theories" and "disinformation".
For the record: Does that in any way justify censorship by the state? Absolutely not and the development is extremely worrying.
On September 19 2025 08:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: The Jimmy Kimmel situation just got way more insane:
These are the demands ABC-affiliate Sinclair is making to air Jimmy Kimmel again
The company said in a press release that ABC's decision to suspend "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" was "not enough" and included some demands if it were to ever air the show again:
A "direct apology" from Kimmel to Kirk's family. A "meaningful" donation to Kirk's family and his organization, Turning Point USA. Appropriate steps taken to "uphold the standards expected of a national broadcast platform."
"Sinclair will not lift the suspension of 'Jimmy Kimmel Live!' on our stations until formal discussions are held with ABC regarding the network's commitment to professionalism and accountability," the company said.
The broadcaster said it would air a special "in remembrance" of Kirk during Kimmel's usual timeslot on Friday.
That the chair of the FCC is also interjecting in the manner they are, hm.
A prominent Fox host can openly advocate for the involuntary euthanasia of folks with mental health issues, or the homeless, but Kimmel merely said he felt people were weaponising Kirk’s death.
Who’s still on the air?
Agreed, and I'd take it one step further: Not only were Kimmel's comments completely innocuous, but they weren't even aimed at Charlie Kirk. Kimmel very clearly criticized MAGA's and Trump's response to Kirk's death, but didn't once dismiss Kirk in any sort of negative way. Kimmel didn't say Kirk was a bad person (which still would have been an accurate understatement), or that Kirk used to have some controversial opinions (accurate understatement #2), or anything about Kirk's agenda or family or anything else that could have been criticized as tone deaf / not the right time to bring up. Kimmel's MAGA/Trump criticism calls out just how self-serving MAGA/Trump has been for using Kirk's death for their own opportunistic purposes; Kimmel mocked MAGA/Trump for trying to score political points and not being respectful or sincere about grieving for Kirk:
On September 18 2025 12:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I think this is the full extent of Kimmel's talk about Kirk (which was mostly making fun of Trump): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLXFdP3t-XU
So ultimately, Kimmel was actually cancelled for mocking Trump, not for saying anything bad about Charlie Kirk.
Kimmel said that the killer was MAGA and not a leftist. He also vaguely talked about Trump wanting to make people upset at something other than the Epstein case. If this had been a right-winger talking about a political assassination of a prominent person on the left, the media would have called it "conspiracy theories" and "disinformation".
For the record: Does that in any way justify censorship by the state? Absolutely not and the development is extremely worrying.
He didn't say that the killer was MAGA, he said that Trump et. al. were doing everything they could to point out that the killer wasn't MAGA in order to score political points.
Kimmel precisely said that MAGA wants to convince everybody, that the Tyler Robinson was anything but a kid from a MAGA-Family, so somebody they would call "their own" - if he hadn't shot a better one of their own.
Then he proceeded to show Trump who expectedly not even could spare 5 seconds of fake sadness to a syccophant question, or give a shit about Chester Kurk or whatever, but is happy about the new ball room in the Whitehouse.
Fascism needs to antagonize outside groups. It contradicts the narrative that somebody who "has it all" - is white, gunloving and churchgoing - to suddenly take up a gun and shoot somebody who is preaching the fascism.
In this alpha-Phase it would have been better if Tyler Robinson was a blue haired translesbian SJW BLM DEI CRT activist - from Uganda.
These people weren't cancelled or pulled or whatever. Cancelled is when the customers or providers refuse to associate with them anymore. There's no government involvement, they alienate their own audience or the commercial foundation upon which they operated.
These people were silenced. Censored. It's important to remember the difference because intellectually dishonest conservatives will try to pretend there is no difference.
The worst thing is that even perceived to be "neutral as possible" media does not have time to debunk all the tagged on lies in reporting the sudden ending of JKL.
They will shorten the tagline to "Jimmy Kimmel fired over being offensive to Charlie Kirk mourners"
Which he wasn't. But it gives MAGA additional layers of denying that they are in a Führerkult and helping to destroy america.
It's like when they are all against child molesters, apart from the 12 seconds it takes them to vote for a bill releasing the Epstein files.
The news should be:
"FCC chair and sudden Trump loyalist uses agencies power to leverage ABC into discontinue show that was making fun of Trump"
I'm still not done with the Charlie Kirk thing. Please tolerate my stubborness, I think this is too good to miss out on. A complete breakdown of Kirk's manipulation tactics to justify and propagate his racism. Top tier explanation.
On September 19 2025 08:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: The Jimmy Kimmel situation just got way more insane:
These are the demands ABC-affiliate Sinclair is making to air Jimmy Kimmel again
The company said in a press release that ABC's decision to suspend "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" was "not enough" and included some demands if it were to ever air the show again:
A "direct apology" from Kimmel to Kirk's family. A "meaningful" donation to Kirk's family and his organization, Turning Point USA. Appropriate steps taken to "uphold the standards expected of a national broadcast platform."
"Sinclair will not lift the suspension of 'Jimmy Kimmel Live!' on our stations until formal discussions are held with ABC regarding the network's commitment to professionalism and accountability," the company said.
The broadcaster said it would air a special "in remembrance" of Kirk during Kimmel's usual timeslot on Friday.
That the chair of the FCC is also interjecting in the manner they are, hm.
A prominent Fox host can openly advocate for the involuntary euthanasia of folks with mental health issues, or the homeless, but Kimmel merely said he felt people were weaponising Kirk’s death.
Who’s still on the air?
Agreed, and I'd take it one step further: Not only were Kimmel's comments completely innocuous, but they weren't even aimed at Charlie Kirk. Kimmel very clearly criticized MAGA's and Trump's response to Kirk's death, but didn't once dismiss Kirk in any sort of negative way. Kimmel didn't say Kirk was a bad person (which still would have been an accurate understatement), or that Kirk used to have some controversial opinions (accurate understatement #2), or anything about Kirk's agenda or family or anything else that could have been criticized as tone deaf / not the right time to bring up. Kimmel's MAGA/Trump criticism calls out just how self-serving MAGA/Trump has been for using Kirk's death for their own opportunistic purposes; Kimmel mocked MAGA/Trump for trying to score political points and not being respectful or sincere about grieving for Kirk:
On September 18 2025 12:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I think this is the full extent of Kimmel's talk about Kirk (which was mostly making fun of Trump): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLXFdP3t-XU
So ultimately, Kimmel was actually cancelled for mocking Trump, not for saying anything bad about Charlie Kirk.
Kimmel said that the killer was MAGA and not a leftist.
He did not say this in the video I posted. Did he say it somewhere else?
He also vaguely talked about Trump wanting to make people upset at something other than the Epstein case.
Yes. He said that Trump was talking about the new ballroom (nothing related to Charlie Kirk) as a distraction from the Epstein list. That's because Trump is a rapist and is probably a child rapist too, and Trump frequently tries to change the subject whenever his crimes or lack of ethics are in the limelight.
If this had been a right-winger talking about a political assassination of a prominent person on the left, the media would have called it "conspiracy theories" and "disinformation".
Based on the countless previous examples of Trump trying to misdirect and obfuscate, I think it logically follows that Trump would continue talking about irrelevant topics whenever he's in hot water.
For the record: Does that in any way justify censorship by the state? Absolutely not and the development is extremely worrying.
I agree. After all, if we're censoring comedians and talk show hosts for merely offending a president, I can't imagine how seriously we'd need to start censoring right-wing news organizations and political commentators (Fox, Breitbart, Ben Shapiro, Candace Owens, etc.) for their dangerous falsehoods and lies.
On September 19 2025 00:43 castleeMg wrote: [quote]
That’s not the argument, of course they can’t be responsible for what random people post. The argument was that biff said “everyone condemned Kirk’s death” which is absolutely not true. I saw compiled clips of sickos praising his death and commending the shooter. There are even people in this thread that never outright praised the shooter but instead borderline rationalized his actions by saying things like “he had it coming” and “live by the sword, die by the sword”
Nobody knows who made said clips.
Were you looking at an opinion or at ragebait ? Hard to tell these days when social media seems like a centrally controlled blob.
So you’re really on the side that some people didn’t make social media posts praising Charlie Kirk’s death who genuinely meant it? Those must of just been bad actors on the right? I’m sure when random people on the right post horrible things you’ll be quick to point the finger at them but when it’s the left it’s always some conspiracy that the right is actually behind it? Thats what you’re alluding to correct?
No I‘m saying I don‘t know which one of the two it is.
I don‘t know who made the clips and if they benefit from it. I don‘t even know if Americans made them.
What if they were Russian ? Or German neonazis ?
You can type “Celebrating kirks death” on Twitter and see the numerous posts and videos of real people celebrating his death. Likely right wing accounts reposted the videos and posts but does that make a difference if the posts are genuine and real?
I don‘t use twitter or similar platforms. Can‘t make me.
When I used to browse it, I got my head filled with nonsense. It‘s hardly going to be better now.
The old “I refuse to read or watch it so I can’t confirm it to be true” response
What an argument. Lol
I've deleted my Twitter account years ago and I feel great about it. Highly recommended. It's a terrible place and I hear it's only gotten worse.
It's great if you're trying to speedrun seeing every racial slur in the dictionary.
Bluesky is in a good spot right now. There's still some engagement trolling, but if you just want to follow some artists and critics it's perfect.
I don't think that right is correct, again, random people online of which many can be bots and there is no way to verify who they are does not mean that "the left is/was celebrating" or "gleefully joking".
How do you post both of this in span of few hours?
I personally don't judge any group of people based on the actions of the worse among them, that leads to all kinds of fucked up shit, and that's what right does, that's what allows them to other and go after their opponents.
On September 19 2025 20:53 Magic Powers wrote: I'm still not done with the Charlie Kirk thing. Please tolerate my stubborness, I think this is too good to miss out on. A complete breakdown of Kirk's manipulation tactics to justify and propagate his racism. Top tier explanation.
Fascism needs to antagonize outside groups. It contradicts the narrative that somebody who "has it all" - is white, gunloving and churchgoing - to suddenly take up a gun and shoot somebody who is preaching the fascism.
Meanwhile Wombat has Kirk in top 4 of his celebrated deaths
On September 19 2025 04:43 WombaT wrote: I’d put Charlie Kirk in my top 4 celebrated deaths.
Jankisa also has him somewhere on his list:
On September 19 2025 05:42 Jankisa wrote:
Personally, for me Kirk doesn't really rank that high, I'd definitely have Rush above him.
I dont think they ever even meet the guy.
It doesant even matter if guy was leftist (which I would say is 9 out of 10 chance he was). What matter, is that left endorsed it en masse. It doesnt matter what Democrat leading figures did, what matters is that Democrats are party of those people.
On September 17 2025 22:19 KT_Elwood wrote: I find the sentiment "He can't be right wing, if he was in love with a transperson". hilarious.
On September 17 2025 21:50 Magic Powers wrote: .... That means it was an assassination based on Kirk's expression of political views. But as you correctly point out that doesn't imply TR was either left or right. He may've chosen Kirk as his target based on the demographics Kirk expressed hatred for, and not based on the ideology Kirk represented.
....
You got it. Expressing hatred based on Religion/Race/Gender/Sexual orientation is not expressing a political view.
That's just being a threat to other people's existence.
Americans and especially right-wing people in my mind have a rather narrow approach to combat existencial threats. (Hint: It's always involving guns!)
I think this conversation is not handled responsibly when its between left/right wing people disagreeing. We all agree there are times when people should die for their political beliefs. We may not agree a specific person had sufficiently wrong beliefs to be killed, but WW2 was totally about "political beliefs".
On September 18 2025 02:22 Mohdoo wrote: I think this conversation is not handled responsibly when its between left/right wing people disagreeing. We all agree there are times when people should die for their political beliefs. We may not agree a specific person had sufficiently wrong beliefs to be killed, but WW2 was totally about "political beliefs".
Agreed, the vitriol has become too much, but one side is broadly armed and in control of government, and openly flaunting the constitution and established legal precedent.
This was released the other day, and while I am loathe to speculate, this would appear to be the exact sort of thing the right is calling for. Attacking someone's beliefs is not the same thing as attacking someone's personhood or safety, which is basically what the more extreme (platformed) arm of the right is doing. The very fact that they can advocate things like that and this should be terrifying to everyone who cares about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I fully realize that those 'rappers' are just individuals, but at the same time, so was Tyler Robinson. The response on the right has not been about individuals, it has been collectivist and identity-based, which is ironically the thing they claim to hate most. They seem to be happy to sacrifice whole groups and their identity as freedom-loving Americans to sate their bloodlust.
Seems like people here have 0 self awareness.
On September 18 2025 22:21 Uldridge wrote: I don't have the brainpower to combat a mentally deranged group of people that deny reality. They stoke the flames while gaslighting at the same time.
On September 19 2025 20:53 Magic Powers wrote: I'm still not done with the Charlie Kirk thing. Please tolerate my stubborness, I think this is too good to miss out on. A complete breakdown of Kirk's manipulation tactics to justify and propagate his racism. Top tier explanation.
The Daily Show has a nice response to the Trump/Kimmel tragedy. Jon Stewart parodies just how absolutely amazing and eloquent and intelligent and totally-has-a-large-penis Donald Trump is, on both the national and international stages. The correspondents satirically "fall in line" behind Trump's fascism and marching orders, while still pointing out hypocrisy after hypocrisy from Republicans. Trump also unironically gives a shout-out to George Orwell.
EPT![[image loading]](https://kowallawgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/1620393090037.jpg)
