This is presented as some kind of gotcha post, but it just completely misses the point unless ABC was, then, also pressured to cancel that show by the chair of a government dependent regulatory agency by threatening to revoke or not renew their broadcasting license.
If you don’t understand the difference, you don’t understand free speech.
I still don’t understand how dowd got bumped from msnbc for saying bad thoughts lead to bad words and then to bad actions. Where was the outrage over “just kill 'em” on fox.
There are plenty of similarities in all these cases, but the bottom line is that all of these things were business decisions that flowed with the then administration of US. Roseanne wasn’t thrown to the curb by ABC because somebody high up didn’t like what she was saying. She was fired because they didn’t like what her sayings were about to cause their finances.
Gina Carano changed her pronouns to “beep/bop/boop” and got fired.
I’m not trying to say that any of these were ok because the other side did it too. That would be dumb. I’m trying to say that the correct way to think about is either A) all of these firings are bad or B) all of these firings are fine. There are no other options.
Rosanne did not have the government threatening that she needed to go out the regulatory agencies were going to do things the hard way to them. She made a very specific raciat comment about a specific person.
Same with Gina, there was zero government threat. BTW the event that triggered her dismissal was not what you said, it was saying the Republicans had it as bad as Jews during the Holocaust. Some people got offended by her pronoun thing, but her job was intact for a long time after that because most people didn’t care.
Kimmel had the FCC chair openly threaten to make life miserable for abc and its affiliates. This was not because he says anything about Charlie himself, but called out MAGA for trying to politically weaponize the event. In the wake of the event, another right winger on NPR similarly said he was glad that NPR was defunded because the interviewer was so hateful. What did she say? That political violence was a problem for both sides, giving the example of the assassination of democratic politicians this year. This undermined his rant about how only leftists were violent and he got super pissed.
c) each of these firings are different
I’m trying to say that the correct way to think about is either A) all of these firings are bad or B) all of these firings are fine. There are no other options.
That is the stupidest fucking thing I have read on this site. Nothing on this world is black and white, and your refusal to actually look at this situation and see the difference is willfull ignorance. Do better or just shit the fuck up.
I’m trying to say that the correct way to think about is either A) all of these firings are bad or B) all of these firings are fine. There are no other options.
Yeah, no.
One thing is a company not wanting to be represented by a controversial statement of a public figure (because it would affect their business negatively), the other is the government suppressing dissent. It would be insane, or moronic, to think these two cases should be assessed equally.
Where’s the problem? She did say something vile. He didn’t.
What’s worse: He didn’t say anything bad whatsoever about Kirk. He said something about the killer that hasn’t been proven and may be speculation (his political beliefs). He also said — truthfully — that Trump was shown not caring about Kirk. That’s what they don’t like. The Supreme Leader not walking what he talks.
The twat’s tweet:
“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?
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.
#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.
There’s apparently some sort of deal in the pipeline that might’ve been jeopardized if they hadn’t acted.
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.
-
The government had Kimmel removed becayse he insulted the regime. A corporation had Barr removed to protect their profits. They are not the same. One is authoritarianism.
This is a hot take. A hot, steamy, slightly runny take.
I know you’re a troll arguing in bad faith, so this isn’t directed to you. This is to the people reading that don’t understand the definition of free speech in the US.
