[camel_Snake]

> Paraphrased, Kimmel said that the killer was a republican.

He literally didn't though? Why does this mistake keep being made. Kimmel made 0 assertions about the shooter. He did make assertions about the President and his conduct, however.

[ajross]

He... sorta did: "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 [...]"

The sentence is convoluted but clearly implies that "this kid" was "one of the MAGA gang".

Is that what Kimmel meant? No, his point was that they (the MAGA gang) were exploiting the tragedy to "score political points". But it's not what he said, really. So arguments over meaning can at least happen in good faith. If someone says they're offended, I think it's not unreasonable to clarify and offer an apology.

...but not obviously to be sacrificed at an altar to the FCC commisioner.

[soperj]

Regardless of whether he was one of the MAGA gang, they are trying to characterize him as anything but one of them. No one really knows at this point, but that hasn't stopped the characterization.

[Jcowell]

> The sentence is convoluted but clearly implies that "this kid" was "one of the MAGA gang".

What? This is crazy “find the authors purpose” gymnastics. The quote does nothing to imply that the kids is Maga or not. It does however directly commentates on “Maga gang”’s actions to try to paint him as anyone other than someone who could be MAGA. Thats the entire point of what was said

[zahlman]

> The quote does nothing to imply that the kids is Maga or not. It does however directly commentates on “Maga gang”’s actions to try to paint him as anyone other than someone who could be MAGA

In every universe where the shooter is not "MAGA" (which, on the available evidence, includes ours), "trying to paint him as anyone else" is truthful, and not wrong. The entire point of a critique of this sort is to allege that someone did something wrong. The sentence does carry the implication that Kimmel is calling the shooter "MAGA" (i.e., either believes it, or wants to insinuate it) because otherwise there would be no reason, in Kimmel's position, to say any of it.

[ajross]

> The sentence does carry the implication that Kimmel is calling the shooter "MAGA"

True.

> because otherwise there would be no reason, in Kimmel's position, to say any of it.

Untrue. In context, what he's saying (this is clear in the sentences before and after) is that MAGA is playing politics by arguing about attribution. Remember in the early hours it did look like the shooter might have been a groyper, and even Fuentes himself came out to disavow violence. By Kimmel's monologue, the trans angle had diluted that obviously. But if we're playing interpretation games you can point out he was using past tense, right?

The "offensive" content needs to be deliberately inferred, and the appropriate response is to clarify and apologize. We all know what actually happened isn't about what Kimmel actually said.

[zahlman]

> is that MAGA is playing politics by arguing about attribution.

Arguing about attribution would only be wrong, or worth pointing out, if they had a "MAGA" dead to rights about it. The context is a show that frequently bashes "MAGA", Trump and that entire political alignment, and only gets significant viewership when doing so.

> in the early hours it did look like the shooter might have been a groyper

This was a strained interpretation essentially based on the idea that groypers immerse themselves in 4chan political memes, as if it were exclusive to them. They have an /lgbt/ board.

But even if that had panned out, groypers are a separate, barely-comprehensible "far group". Rounding them off to "MAGA" would still be wrong.

> The "offensive" content needs to be deliberately inferred

No, it doesn't. It's an ordinary reading of a common idiom on these sorts of political punditry shows. If you're accusing someone of "trying to characterize X as anything other than Y", this accusation has force because you allege that X is Y, that the truth of this is plain, and that the person you accuse is trying to hide an inconvenient truth. And we know that this was intended as an accusation of doing something harmful because he described the "MAGA gang" as "hitting a new low" in doing so.

Kimmel's statement projected an unjustified and irresponsible confidence in something that now appears to have been clearly wrong.

> and the appropriate response is to clarify and apologize.

I see no reason to suppose that this would have happened. It also would have to be a retraction, not a clarification, because pointing out that the argument about attribution was justified cannot be a "clarification" of describing that act of attribution as "hitting a new low".

> We all know what actually happened isn't about what Kimmel actually said.

I agree that other reasons existed to fire him, mainly, declining ratings.

The guy also just isn't funny. He doesn't demonstrate any wit. He was just providing a space where people who wanted to mock Trump (or hear such mockery) could feel validated. There isn't exactly a dearth of such spaces.

[ajross]

> No, it doesn't. It's an ordinary reading of a common idiom

But not the only reading. Which you seem to agree with because you dodged that point. So if there are two interpretations, one offensive and one not, surely you agree that the reasonable reaction is just to discuss things like adults, right?

And not for the FCC commissioner to go out in public and threaten an unconstitional censorship of political speech, right?

Because you agree that Kimmel could have been innocent of the terrible crimes he was accused of.

Look, I'm not telling you that you aren't angry. I'm telling you that you're letting your anger lead you into some very scary places. Because those same tools can destroy Hannity too.