Merged Charlie Kirk shot at Utah Valley University event. / Charlie Kirk Shot And Killed

I guess these are the "remarks."

Meanwhile, “many in Maga-land are working very hard to capitalize on the murder of Charlie Kirk”. On Monday, JD Vance, who once called Trump “America’s Hitler”, hosted Kirk’s podcast from the White House and blamed the left, without evidence. Said Vance: “While our side of the aisle certainly has its crazies, it is a statistical fact that most of the lunatics in American politics today are proud members of the far left.”

it'
“And by ‘statistical fact’, he means ‘complete ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊’,” Kimmel corrected. In fact, the Department of Justice removed from its website a study finding that violence from far-right groups is the greatest source of domestic terror and extremist violence in the US. “Here’s a question JD Vance might be able to answer: who wanted to hang the guy who was vice president before you?” Kimmel said. “Was that the liberal left? Or the toothless army who stormed the Capitol on January 6.”

“The president and his henchmen are doing their best to fan the flames, so they can I guess attack people on the dangerous left,” Kimmel added, noting the incongruence with the right’s former vision of so-called “snowflake” liberals. “Which is it?” he wondered. “Are they a bunch of sissy pickleball players because they’re too scared to get hit by tennis balls? Or are they a well-organized army of commandos? Because they can’t be both.”
Click to expand...
Seem pretty tame, and accurate.


Yet, a guy who suggests killing the homeless get's off with an apology. This current situation is ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up and these cowardly media networks are to blame. They could broadcast Kirk's vile racism all the doo-dah ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ day, but any criticism, any factual analysis of it is right out. The right is capitalizing on Kirk's death, they are bull ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ the public, and it's the media's job to call them on it, not fire a guy brave enough to do their job for them. ◊◊◊◊ them. ◊◊◊◊ ABC, ◊◊◊◊ the FCC, and ◊◊◊◊ all the liars pretending outrage. ◊◊◊◊ them all.
 
Last edited:
Andy_Ross said:
FCC Chairman Brendan Carr: "There's actions we can take on licensed broadcasters. It's long past the time that...Comcast and Disney say 'We're not gonna run Kimmel anymore...because we licensed broadcasters are running the possibly of fines or licensed revocation from the FCC.'"

https://twitter.com/x/status/1968392506711613526
Click to expand...
As far as I'm aware, the affiliates hold the licenses, not the corporate.
 
An autodidact is pretty often somebody who makes things up and
then believes them.

Me, I'm an autocaseumophagist. I can eat a piece of cheese all by myself.

Ah well, I must grieve that now never in this life will I be able to
debate charlie kirk. Never, ever.

I wish I felt a little worse about that.
 
Last edited:
Resume said:
View attachment 63984
Kimmel out. It was inevitable anyway, given the media's constant caving.
Click to expand...
I look forward to him joining Colbert and the gang putting on a corporate-freeish news program on an online channel. It used to be that there was at least a presence of news not so influenced by the corporate heads. Then they started firing multiple anchors for coloring outside of the lines I guess. I watch a few of them now where they landed like Don Lemon and Jim Acosta who have internet shows.

I'm not sure how aggressive the Trump cultist corporations are going to be trying to squeeze that kind of competition out. I suspect they might if Trump finds out he didn't silence the comedians after all and looks for some other way to exert pressure.

Remember the good old days when Jon Stewart had comedy that was more informative than any mainstream news?

Getting back to the thread, thanks for the posts on Kirk's debating schtick. I was having trouble putting my finger on it.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I look forward to him joining Colbert and the gang putting on a corporate-freeish news program on an online channel. It used to be that there was at least a presence of news not so influenced by the corporate heads. Then they started firing multiple anchors for coloring outside of the lines I guess. I watch a few of them now where they landed like Don Lemon and Jim Acosta who have internet shows.

I'm not sure how aggressive the Trump cultist corporations are going to be trying to squeeze that kind of competition out. I suspect they might if Trump finds out he didn't silence the comedians after all and looks for some other way to exert pressure.

Remember the good old days when Jon Stewart had comedy that was more informative than any mainstream news?

Getting back to the thread, thanks for the posts on Kirk's debating schtick. I was having trouble putting my finger on it.
Click to expand...
Between them, they are rich enough that they could outright buy their own venue (so that they can't be cancelled by a pressure campaign on venue owners) to hold the Jimmy & Steve LIVE show and livestream it via YouTube....
 
I just read a headline saying that the Jimmy Kimmel show is cancelled because of comments he made about Kirk.
 
smartcooky said:
Between them, they are rich enough that they could outright buy their own venue (so that they can't be cancelled by a pressure campaign on venue owners) to hold the Jimmy & Steve LIVE show and livestream it via YouTube....
Click to expand...
Check out his viewership numbers. There are youtubers you've never heard of that already have that many subscribers, or twice that many, or ten times that many.
 
Resume said:
ETA: Subs do not necessarily equal views.
Click to expand...
Yes. Subs are usually a fraction of total views. If every one of Kimmel's current viewers subscribed, that would probably translate to a similar amount of views as other YouTubers with similar sub numbers.

Conversely, we can take his latest viewership numbers, and extrapolate that to his likely reach on YouTube: Anemic subs, non-competitive views, relative to big time YouTubers.

To his credit, Kimmel has commanded an impressive fraction of the millennial-Gen Z population that still watches late night TV talk shows. But those are rookie numbers, on YouTube.

Which raises the question: How important was Kimmel, anyway?
 
theprestige said:
Yes. Subs are usually a fraction of total views. If every one of Kimmel's current viewers subscribed, that would probably translate to a similar amount of views as other YouTubers with similar sub numbers.

Conversely, we can take his latest viewership numbers, and extrapolate that to his likely reach on YouTube: Anemic subs, non-competitive views, relative to big time YouTubers.

To his credit, Kimmel has commanded an impressive fraction of the millennial-Gen Z population that still watches late night TV talk shows. But those are rookie numbers, on YouTube.

Which raises the question: How important was Kimmel, anyway?
Click to expand...

What a weird way to frame an authoritarian crackdown on the First Amendment.
 
An interesting graphic from the economist showing how attitudes to political violence change as violent events occur. Not surprisingly, each side tends to view politically motivated violence as a bigger problem immediately after one of their own is the target. This puts some context to the poll some cited upthread that suggested democrats were more accepting of violence than repubs. The data was collected in the immediate aftermath of the assassination.

1758160158307.png
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
It was an excuse, obviously. Trump was insulted every night by Kimmel and Trump just cannot stand it.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that all of the late night hosts are saying "◊◊◊◊ it, we're all going to end up getting cancelled at some point, let's just say what we think now and get it out there."
 
Say what's on your mind, let them cancel you.

Despite Trumpers' limitless hypocrisy, I think young edgelords tend to find censorship pretty weak and they don't win much from this. I don't think they enjoy looking like the crybabies. They'd rather be the ones dishing out the memes and dark humor.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom