Social Jimmy Kimmel gets Canceled

[SuperAlly]

 

[SuperAlly]

Always time for this classic



The amount of tweets from people on the far left apoplectic with rage about kimmel who were cheerleaders when similar things happened to people on the other side of the political divide is frankly astonishing.

Well, no, not astonishing. Utterly predictable. But you, know, it's the phrase...

 

[Blayt7hh]

Is that how you explain all this away? The right is triggered? The right just watched their nice guy debate bro get his head blown off and then watched millions of leftists celebrate. The left has made it crystal clear they have dehumanized us to the point where being the good faith gentleman is simply off the table.

I don’t know if you’re paying any attention or not but the right has been behaving like that online for a long time now. So cut the shit being a good faith gentleman, that’s never been representative of the right.

What’s dangerous here and especially bad is we are taking about the government censoring a comedian that didn’t even say anything bad about the victim. He (correctly) pointed out that this administration was going to exploit his death to their own ends. Pretty hard to deny when they then went ahead and did that exactly to him.

There is no if ands or buts about this case. This is cut and dry the government stepping on the first amendment to tailor public discourse to what they want. This is straight from the authoritarian playbook.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

Always time for this classic



The amount of tweets from people on the far left apoplectic with rage about kimmel who were cheerleaders when similar things happened to people on the other side of the political divide is frankly astonishing.

Well, no, not astonishing. Utterly predictable. But you, know, it's the phrase...

It's quite sad to see really. I was against the cancel culture/mob justice years ago, as I am now after the pendulum swing. It's disappointing though that I feel like I'm in some really small minority. It seems most everyone else is just fighting to control cancel culture/mob justice.

Though perhaps in reality there's more people out there that are either for or against it in principle in a non-partisan way, but they just don't talk out loud about it.

 

[Andy Capp]

"The Maga gang [is] 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.”
- Jimmy Kimmel

Robinson wasn't "one of" the MAGA gang. He butted heads with his father who is a Trump supporter, reportedly, he despised Trump, and he killed Charlie Kirk due to his belief that Kirk spewed hatred which even after Kirk's assassination has prevailed widely as a left-wing sentiment.

Now, I'm familiar with you, Andy, and I'm sure you're going to say something mind-numbingly stupid that attempts to deny the obvious, here. You will somehow manage to be dumber than the people who are supporting the FCC going after Kimmel. Less dangerous, but dumber.

lol @ this projection,
"You will somehow manage to be dumber than the people who are supporting the FCC going after Kimmel. Less dangerous, but dumber."

Kimmel didn't say what Robinson is one of at any point, did he? Again, the evidence is right here on this site that shows that before anyone knew anything whatsoever about the shooter, the MAGA-naughts were screaming to the high heavens that "the left" was responsible.

[Edit} I noticed you didn't establish what he lied about, and instead resorted to ad hominem. What a surprise.

But you do you; keep perpetuating a lie; it's starting to look like a job requirement for certain mods here.

Incidentally, aren't you the one who justified doxing an innocent person with "oops, my bad", and then hypocritically left the post up when other such posts in that thread were being immediately deleted?

Good job.

 

[Andy Capp]

I actually like your take overall and not to nitpick, but I do think your editor bracket is doing a lot of heavy lifting in the quote here by implying that Kimmel was suggesting currently, when he was clearly referring to the prior weekend.

His actual quote 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."

Now we can argue about when we "officially" knew he was left wing, but inserting [is] would prove he still thinks that and would also discredit the argument that "he was criticizing MAGA's response, not making a claim about the shooter", so I don't think it's a fair add.

Otherwise, I actually agree with you that irl the implication is there, but (and I don't think you're disagreeing here just stating my own take) when the FCC gets involved, I do think it should be about what he actually said, not what we think he meant.

Fair, but he called what Kimmel said a lie. I don't think the implication is there as you do, but in any case, it's a matter of opinion, not fact.

 

[Loiosh]

Yes. This attempt to legalese Kimmel out of his obvious implication is pathetic and malicious.

Because if we're going to be this anal about language, Trump supporters weren't desperately seeking to characterize him as anything other than one of them. They weren't accusing him of being a #NeverTrumper anti-abortion activist. Why would they? Kirk was against abortion. They weren't accusing him of sympathy to the Zomi Revolutionary Army in India. Why would they? Nobody in the USA knows or cares who that group is. No, there was a general consensus, and it was rather specific. They were (and continue) to accuse him of killing Kirk because of his sympathies aligning with a left-wing disdain for Kirk's right-wing beliefs. When any political figure is assassinated in public, before we know anything else, this is always the most reasonable initial suspicion of motive. To assert this doesn't make the victimized group villainous.

To phrase it as Jimmy did, by accusing them of casting these allegations blindly, which is inaccurate, clearly suggests they were scrambling "desperately" to deflect from the truth that he was one of them, but of course, that isn't the truth. It was never even a declared suspicion by authorities. Why would they need to "desperately" characterize him as "anything other" than something nobody associated with the investigation characterized him as being?

Because the only one who clearly implied this characterization was Kimmel himself. It's the only sensible interpretation of why he would phrase it the way he did.

Excuse me? The only "trans involvement" I mentioned in my posts was what the police officially shared with us, and the accuracy of this remains; that he was in a romantic relationship with a roommate who is transitioning to female. This is a reasonable foundation for motive as his homosexuality, particularly being with a trans partner, explains why he despised Kirk for Kirk's political arguments.

Once again you avoided answering my question, and even edited it out of my text in your response.

I disagreed with almost everything you said but there's no point engaging in good faith if you can't answer a straightforward question.

And your fist-pump gif demonstrated that this is emotional for you, not impartial.

 

[HereticBD]

It's quite sad to see really. I was against the cancel culture/mob justice years ago, as I am now after the pendulum swing. It's disappointing though that I feel like I'm in some really small minority. It seems most everyone else is just fighting to control cancel culture/mob justice.

That's the truth of the matter. You can also look at a lot of the people who claim to be against it in general, and measure the depth of their concern, depending on who it is happening to. If it happens to the other side, you might get the softest of denouncements, like "I don't agree", "Not a good look", etc, but when it happens to their side, they're spitting mad, acting like it's the end of the world, demanding investigations and congressional action.

 

[HereticBD]

Kimmel didn't say what Robinson is one of at any point, did he?

No, it was carefully worded enough, so idiots like you could play dumb over the obvious intent of the statement.

Again, the evidence is right here on this site that shows that before anyone knew anything whatsoever about the shooter, the MAGA-naughts were screaming to the high heavens that "the left" was responsible.

And they were right, because guessing the motivation of someone who would assassinate a prominent right wing voice while doing the thing the left is so opposed to, is not hard to do. Everyone by the dumbest/most dishonest people on Earth(the left), easily deduced the very obvious motive seconds after it happened, and were unsurprisingly proven 100% correct.

It was also quite the projection, considering it was the left doing everything in their power to deny he was one of theirs.

"Uhh...uhh, are we sure he's not a...*checks Reddit*...Groyper?"

"Maybe it was Israel?"

"He grew up shooting guns. Liberals don't know how to shoot guns"

To this day, you guys are still trying to deny reality over the shooter's obvious and established motive.

 

[Madmick]

Once again you avoided answering my question, and even edited it out of my text in your response.

I disagreed with almost everything you said but there's no point engaging in good faith if you can't answer a straightforward question.

And your fist-pump gif demonstrated that this is emotional for you, not impartial.

Let's summarize, shall we?

In our last encounter you're crying about, you berated @Mr Holmes for asserting the man the governor of Texas recently pardoned for murder of a #BLM protester, Daniel Perry, shot his victim in self-defense because the man approached his car with an AK-47 and raised it to point it at Perry. I stepped in only to highlight that Holme's claim was credible, and corroborated an eyewitness account. The dead man raised his gun at Perry. It's reasonable that many believe it was self-defense. After a few posts, humiliated, you begged me to change the subject by asking me this question about "is violence worse from the right or left?" This was entirely unrelated to my participation in that conversation, so I ignored you.

In this encounter, after I point out that your defense of Kimmel is disingenuous, weak, and mean-spirited, you whine that I'm not "engaging in good faith". Hey, Dory, you were the one who engaged me. Member? It was 2 posts ago. I'm not playing keyboard warrior to deny the obvious implication that Kimmel made. I didn't even make my argument to justify the Trump administration's maneuvers against Kimmel and ABC. I simply pointed out that any impartial observer can acknowledge what Kimmel said was misleading, grounded in his partisan bias, and yet it doesn't justify removing him from the air.

On top of that, you allege that I cast some inaccurate allegation against the trans community's involvement in the shooting. I did not. When challenged about this, do you produce evidence of me telling a lie? Of course not. Because I didn't. So do you apologize for making shit up? No, instead, after getting steamrolled, you are again throwing a tantrum that I won't entertain your attempt to bargain your way out of this into an unrelated debate about left-wing vs. right-wing violence. Can you focus, Dory? I'm talking about Kimmel and the FCC.

I don't owe it to you to embark on some unrelated argument because you lost this one. Got it? That's not me conversing in bad faith. It's just you being a whiny little bitch because you got sat down.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Let's summarize, shall we?

In our last encounter you're crying about, you berated @Mr Holmes for asserting the man the governor of Texas recently pardoned for murder of a #BLM protester, Daniel Perry, shot his victim in self-defense because the man approached his car with an AK-47 and raised it to point it at Perry. I stepped in only to highlight that Holme's claim was credible, and corroborated an eyewitness account. The dead man raised his gun at Perry. It's reasonable that many believe it was self-defense. After a few posts, humiliated, you begged me to change the subject by asking me this question about "is violence worse from the right or left?" This was entirely unrelated to my participation in that conversation, so I ignored you.

In this encounter, after I point out that your defense of Kimmel is disingenuous, weak, and mean-spirited, you whine that I'm not "engaging in good faith". Hey, Dory, you were the one who engaged me. Member? It was 2 posts ago. I'm not playing keyboard warrior to deny the obvious implication that Kimmel made. I didn't even make my argument to justify the Trump administration's maneuvers against Kimmel and ABC. I simply pointed out that any impartial observer can acknowledge what Kimmel said was misleading, grounded in his partisan bias, and yet it doesn't justify removing him from the air.

On top of that, you allege that I cast some inaccurate allegation against the trans community's involvement in the shooting. I did not. When challenged about this, do you produce evidence of me telling a lie? Of course not. Because I didn't. So do you apologize for making shit up? No, instead, after getting steamrolled, you are again throwing a tantrum that I won't entertain your attempt to bargain your way out of this into an unrelated debate about left-wing vs. right-wing violence. Can you focus, Dory? I'm talking about Kimmel and the FCC.

I don't owe it to you to embark on some unrelated argument because you lost this one. Got it? That's not me conversing in bad faith. It's just you being a whiny little bitch because you got sat down.

 

[Source]

Let's summarize, shall we?

In our last encounter you're crying about, you berated @Mr Holmes for asserting the man the governor of Texas recently pardoned for murder of a #BLM protester, Daniel Perry, shot his victim in self-defense because the man approached his car with an AK-47 and raised it to point it at Perry. I stepped in only to highlight that Holme's claim was credible, and corroborated an eyewitness account. The dead man raised his gun at Perry. It's reasonable that many believe it was self-defense. After a few posts, humiliated, you begged me to change the subject by asking me this question about "is violence worse from the right or left?" This was entirely unrelated to my participation in that conversation, so I ignored you.

In this encounter, after I point out that your defense of Kimmel is disingenuous, weak, and mean-spirited, you whine that I'm not "engaging in good faith". Hey, Dory, you were the one who engaged me. Member? It was 2 posts ago. I'm not playing keyboard warrior to deny the obvious implication that Kimmel made. I didn't even make my argument to justify the Trump administration's maneuvers against Kimmel and ABC. I simply pointed out that any impartial observer can acknowledge what Kimmel said was misleading, grounded in his partisan bias, and yet it doesn't justify removing him from the air.

On top of that, you allege that I cast some inaccurate allegation against the trans community's involvement in the shooting. I did not. When challenged about this, do you produce evidence of me telling a lie? Of course not. Because I didn't. So do you apologize for making shit up? No, instead, after getting steamrolled, you are again throwing a tantrum that I won't entertain your attempt to bargain your way out of this into an unrelated debate about left-wing vs. right-wing violence. Can you focus, Dory? I'm talking about Kimmel and the FCC.

I don't owe it to you to embark on some unrelated argument because you lost this one. Got it? That's not me conversing in bad faith. It's just you being a whiny little bitch because you got sat down.

In Perry’s first statement to police he said he thought Forest was going to point his weapon at him and didn’t want to give him a chance to do so.


"I believe he was going to aim at me. I didn’t want to give him a chance to aim at me," Perry told Detective Fugitt in the interview.

 

[Loiosh]

Let's summarize, shall we?

In our last encounter you're crying about, you berated @Mr Holmes for asserting the man the governor of Texas recently pardoned for murder of a #BLM protester, Daniel Perry, shot his victim in self-defense because the man approached his car with an AK-47 and raised it to point it at Perry. I stepped in only to highlight that Holme's claim was credible, and corroborated an eyewitness account. The dead man raised his gun at Perry. It's reasonable that many believe it was self-defense. After a few posts, humiliated, you begged me to change the subject by asking me this question about "is violence worse from the right or left?" This was entirely unrelated to my participation in that conversation, so I ignored you.

In this encounter, after I point out that your defense of Kimmel is disingenuous, weak, and mean-spirited, you whine that I'm not "engaging in good faith". Hey, Dory, you were the one who engaged me. Member? It was 2 posts ago. I'm not playing keyboard warrior to deny the obvious implication that Kimmel made. I didn't even make my argument to justify the Trump administration's maneuvers against Kimmel and ABC. I simply pointed out that any impartial observer can acknowledge what Kimmel said was misleading, grounded in his partisan bias, and yet it doesn't justify removing him from the air.

On top of that, you allege that I cast some inaccurate allegation against the trans community's involvement in the shooting. I did not. When challenged about this, do you produce evidence of me telling a lie? Of course not. Because I didn't. So do you apologize for making shit up? No, instead, after getting steamrolled, you are again throwing a tantrum that I won't entertain your attempt to bargain your way out of this into an unrelated debate about left-wing vs. right-wing violence. Can you focus, Dory? I'm talking about Kimmel and the FCC.

I don't owe it to you to embark on some unrelated argument because you lost this one. Got it? That's not me conversing in bad faith. It's just you being a whiny little bitch because you got sat down.

Didn't read all that and I'm assuming it was just you not answering my question.

Again.

 

[Confucamus]

lol @ this projection,
"You will somehow manage to be dumber than the people who are supporting the FCC going after Kimmel. Less dangerous, but dumber."

Kimmel didn't say what Robinson is one of at any point, did he? Again, the evidence is right here on this site that shows that before anyone knew anything whatsoever about the shooter, the MAGA-naughts were screaming to the high heavens that "the left" was responsible.

[Edit} I noticed you didn't establish what he lied about, and instead resorted to ad hominem. What a surprise.

But you do you; keep perpetuating a lie; it's starting to look like a job requirement for certain mods here.

Incidentally, aren't you the one who justified doxing an innocent person with "oops, my bad", and then hypocritically left the post up when other such posts in that thread were being immediately deleted?

Good job.

Just LOL at you complaining about lies when you just got caught lying in this very thread just the other day and ran off like a coward. I wasn't the only one that called you on it either. You're a complete joke of a poster.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

"Your side are the hypocrites." - says the side who are also being hypocrites.

Your side cancelled people who says men cannot become women.

Our side cancelled people who are celebrating murder and are calling for more murder.

We are not the same.

 

[PeterGriffin]

Olay, so maybe I missed something in the timeline, completely and most likely probably did happen, but... did the timeline not play out like this?

Step 1 - Shooting
Step 2 - MAGA immediately blaming the left
Step 3 - Day unfolds, things slowly start coming out.
Step 4 - Kimmel saying what he did
Step 5 - More and more info coming out that says the kid was at odds from what was initially reported (longtime MAGA family)
Step 6 - Family turns kid in
Step 7 - Drama, drama, left/right shitty opinions, drama...

Is this not what happened? I mean, I don't think Kimmel said anything at all out of line, if that's the timeline as it happened. Wasn't the whole "Oh, lol at the right on right crime" narrative going around these forums well before this kid was really exposed as being the family oddball? Did Kimmel say his piece AFTER all the engraved casings/trans focus bullshit start coming out?

I'll be 100% honest here. I'm skeptical as fuck in all of this. The family turned the kid in to save his life and I truly don't believe that kid would have been brought in alive by whoever got their hands on him first.

If I am misremembering the timeline or whatever, I'm sorry. But I don't have cable TV, haven't in decades, I'm not a fan of Kimmel, so I count on Sherdog to keep me informed on some things. But from what I pieced together I believe Kimmel said what he did before all the real information started coming out. If I'm wrong, sorry in advance to whoever's feathers get ruffled.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

Always time for this classic



The amount of tweets from people on the far left apoplectic with rage about kimmel who were cheerleaders when similar things happened to people on the other side of the political divide is frankly astonishing.

Well, no, not astonishing. Utterly predictable. But you, know, it's the phrase...

The irony of this post lol

This entire situation was brought about by the fact someone on TV they don't like said something pretty benign and the entire right went apoplectic

 

[MrShady]

Your side cancelled people who says men cannot become women.

Our side cancelled people who are celebrating murder and are calling for more murder.

We are not the same.

You are the same as you both take turns being the snowflake and victims.

What did Jimmy even say to get cancelled ? Get a grip man, you're in this "my side is morally superior" too deep.

Also, what happened to free speech. Do you prioritize the constitution altogether or just the parts you like when you like it? Someone should be able to celebrate Kirk's death if that's what they want to do. Do I like it? Of course not. But free speech is free speech as long as its speech.

We're not all dems or repubs like your brain likes to perceive. Y'all are both trash, just depends on who's in the political drivers seat to maximize their performative theatre bs. Today, it's the trump admin on a level of idiocracy. Ufc at the White House makes total sense.

 

[Azure]

I have no notion of what the FCC is and what power it has so if somebody can explain this it would be great.

Disney canceled Kimmel because the FCC told them to but there is no official sanction from the FCC(not sure if that is the right term). If the FCC did sanction and force some type of action that Disney felt was unjustified is there not a legal recourse to fight?

So to me this looks like Disney not wanting to stand behind Kimmel or is there more that happened behind the scenes.

Also was Kimmel not going off the air in a few months anyway? Is this jsut a case of Disney saying not worth the effort for a show that is already going off the air.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

That's the truth of the matter. You can also look at a lot of the people who claim to be against it in general, and measure the depth of their concern, depending on who it is happening to. If it happens to the other side, you might get the softest of denouncements, like "I don't agree", "Not a good look", etc, but when it happens to their side, they're spitting mad, acting like it's the end of the world, demanding investigations and congressional action.

I have an overarching distrust in people, and don't really view the general population as "peers" (yes, I'm arrogant somewhat). Even in court of law, a jury is selected, but they are still guided by a judge so as to hopefully not fall for stupid shit. Increasingly one can feel like jury selection has never been more important since it seems like the lust to assign guilt or make up a mind of innocent before due process has fallen out of flavor.

Now an extremely growing number of people are living isolated lives in a post-modern lifestyle. People seldomly come together... when they do it's often for negative purposes and negativity is the new social glue. They're not into bonding, healthy social relationships, healthy intimate relationships, they usually instead basically do some form of envy and rage towards others. They flourish in the demise of these others -- and silly enough, it's not a class thing. Sure, some famous actors get caught up, but you can see the inevitable progression now to just "ordinary people" doing ordinary jobs. This lifestyle is planting fertilizer on the seeds of pleb on pleb cancellations. Businesses and politicians have weaponize this into rage and nihilistic type emotions.

This just leads to a downward spiral while the upper crust just laughs. So righties and lefties can take their turns celebrating when things go "their way" but fail to recognize or care that shitty mob justice attitudes overall lowers the tides and all boats lower and everyone suffers in the long run. Way to go plebs.