“muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby=vj.”
The “vj” in question is Valerie Jarrett. Barr means exactly what you think she means.
Kimmel’s statements:
KIMMEL: 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. In between the finger-pointing, there was grieving. On Friday, the White House flew the flags at half-staff, which got some criticism. But on a human level, you can see how hard the president is taking this.
[Video showing reporter ask Trump about how he feels about the loss of such a close personal friend. Trump responds with…Trucks?]
KIMMEL: Yes, he’s at the fourth stage of grief: construction. Demolition, construction. This is not how an adult grieves the murder of someone he called a friend. This is how a four-year-old mourns a goldfish, OK?
I suppose you can say things are subjectively vile, but I just don’t see accusing the right of trying to weaponize an event with fake grief and outrage as meeting the criteria. Every other shooting has the right accuse the left of politicizing the event for political gains and we don’t generally say that it’s “vile” in an of itself.
Sure
The administration had absolutely zero to do with Rosanne. No government official threatened regulatory punishment over her behavior.
What’s vile are the MAGA attempts to falsely tie the shooting to transgender Americans who are already being persecuted for who they are. Pushing back against that, particularly when the far-right is responsible for far more extremist-linked deaths than the far-left, is the only sensible thing to do.
#1 is junk because that’s just, like, your opinion, man. Also for reasons I’ll come back to for #3.
#2, how’s that working out for them? Either they’re shit at business which is possible or it was a getting-leaned-on-by-the-administration decision which is a problem.
#3, decent humans have decided that it’s not cool to go after a person because somebody thinks that person’s race is icky. That’s what Barr did. Her shit-canning wasn’t about having views that were in opposition to the administration, it was about being a piece of shit.
Kirk chose to be a fountain of hateful verbal diarrhea and no reasonable person should mourn his passing. Kimmel’s comments were tame and inoffensive by all but the meltiest of snowflakey GOP crybully standards. That’s also how we come back to #1.
#2, how’s that working out for them? Either they’re shit at business which is possible or it was a getting-leaned-on-by-the-administration decision which is a problem.
There’s apparently some sort of deal in the pipeline that might’ve been jeopardized if they hadn’t acted. Probably worth much more than what any boycott can cause.
The twat’s tweet:
The “vj” in question is Valerie Jarrett. Barr means exactly what you think she means.
Kimmel’s statements:
Not on the same level, is it?
Of course it’s different. Kimmel dared insult dear leader!!!1!one
On the same level because of three things:
Both were subjectively vile
Both were business decisions
Both decisions aligned with the ideology of the US administration
I suppose you can say things are subjectively vile, but I just don’t see accusing the right of trying to weaponize an event with fake grief and outrage as meeting the criteria. Every other shooting has the right accuse the left of politicizing the event for political gains and we don’t generally say that it’s “vile” in an of itself.
Sure
The administration had absolutely zero to do with Rosanne. No government official threatened regulatory punishment over her behavior.
What’s vile are the MAGA attempts to falsely tie the shooting to transgender Americans who are already being persecuted for who they are. Pushing back against that, particularly when the far-right is responsible for far more extremist-linked deaths than the far-left, is the only sensible thing to do.
deleted by creator
#1 is junk because that’s just, like, your opinion, man. Also for reasons I’ll come back to for #3.
#2, how’s that working out for them? Either they’re shit at business which is possible or it was a getting-leaned-on-by-the-administration decision which is a problem.
#3, decent humans have decided that it’s not cool to go after a person because somebody thinks that person’s race is icky. That’s what Barr did. Her shit-canning wasn’t about having views that were in opposition to the administration, it was about being a piece of shit.
Kirk chose to be a fountain of hateful verbal diarrhea and no reasonable person should mourn his passing. Kimmel’s comments were tame and inoffensive by all but the meltiest of snowflakey GOP crybully standards. That’s also how we come back to #1.
There’s apparently some sort of deal in the pipeline that might’ve been jeopardized if they hadn’t acted. Probably worth much more than what any boycott can cause.
Yes, there was (https://www.forbes.com/sites/howardhomonoff/2025/08/20/nexstar-and-tegna-announce--merger-plan-what-to-look-for-next/). Now, what was the deal that was jeopardised if they hadn’t fired Roseann? Which government official blatantly threatened the network over Roseann? Name, please.
You making this comparison is subjectively vile to me.