And of course Trump always comes along and pours fuel on the fire...
Trump spoke about the issue to reporters on Thursday aboard Air Force One while returning from a state visit to the UK.
"I have read someplace that the networks were 97% against me, again, 97% negative, and yet I won and easily, all seven swing states [in last year's election]," the president said.
"They give me only bad publicity, press. I mean, they're getting a licence. I would think maybe their licence should be taken away."
There's a really excellent Nate Silver piece on where media stands, and the extent of its liberal bias, especially in a world where Fox News is by far the most popular channel, and very definitely doesn't have a liberal bias.
Basically: MSNBC and CNN have clear liberal biases, but their combined viewership is less than Fox, and that is much more partisan than both.
Obviously Trump is talking nonsense.
I think the state of play is as much a function CNN failure as Fox success. MSNBC was a minor player then rode the first Trump outrage cycle, but people eventually got bored. CNN at one point was really big and fairly middle of the road. But gone more and more liberal and employed the left leaning wallies to match up against Fox News lot e.g. Don Lemon.
I was just at a parents' mixer for my daughter's schools, and you realise how incredibly hard it is for these companies.
Disney is facing pressure from the left, because people are cancelling their subscriptions, and pressure from the right, because advertising is being cancelled.
The current story running on the news networks is that Disney are trying to find a way for Kimmel to come back, but he's refusing to apolgise. And having watched the section in question, I must admit, why should he apoligise? It wasn't about Charlie Kirk, it was about Trump being a narcassist.
I don't really know how Disney (and other media companies) manage this. It's going to be very interesting.
He did made a false statement in the first part. Then he went for Trump (which is fair game). I think an apology he got the first bit wrong would have be fine and everybody moves on, but it sounds like he told Iger to do one and he was going to double down on it all. Which then puts Iger / Disney in a difficult position.
In the recent past they have stuck to their guns when they have binned people of, and in case of Gina Carano eventually had to pay out a lot of money.
What was the "false statement"? It all seemed perfectly reasonable to me. If Kimmel did make a "false statement" and deserves to be cancelled, can we cancel Trump every time he makes a "false statement"?
Kimmel - "the Maga gang is desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them"
Kimmel is clearly saying he believes it is a fact that the shooter was part of the MAGA clan. We don't know for certain, but it doesn't appear true. And I don't think it is a wise thing to be saying.
And as I say, I think, a quick apology about, well we don't actually know the motivations of the shooter at the moment in time, I shouldn't really have said that....end of story....back to Trump bashing which he is free to do (albeit the viewers don't seem very interested these days).
I was just at a parents' mixer for my daughter's schools, and you realise how incredibly hard it is for these companies.
Disney is facing pressure from the left, because people are cancelling their subscriptions, and pressure from the right, because advertising is being cancelled.
The current story running on the news networks is that Disney are trying to find a way for Kimmel to come back, but he's refusing to apolgise. And having watched the section in question, I must admit, why should he apoligise? It wasn't about Charlie Kirk, it was about Trump being a narcassist.
I don't really know how Disney (and other media companies) manage this. It's going to be very interesting.
He did made a false statement in the first part. Then he went for Trump (which is fair game). I think an apology he got the first bit wrong would have be fine and everybody moves on, but it sounds like he told Iger to do one and he was going to double down on it all. Which then puts Iger / Disney in a difficult position.
In the recent past they have stuck to their guns when they have binned people of, and in case of Gina Carano eventually had to pay out a lot of money.
What was the "false statement"? It all seemed perfectly reasonable to me. If Kimmel did make a "false statement" and deserves to be cancelled, can we cancel Trump every time he makes a "false statement"?
Kimmel - "the Maga gang is desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them"
Kimmel is clearly saying he believes it is a fact that the shooter was part of the MAGA clan. We don't know for certain, but it doesn't appear true. And I don't think it is a wise thing to be saying.
And as I say, I think, a quick apology about, well we don't actually know the motivations of the shooter at the moment in time, I shouldn't really have said that....end of story....back to Trump bashing which he is free to do (albeit the viewers don't seem very interested these days).
It's not true that the killer was MAGA.
On the other hand, he was a white kid from a Christian* middle class family.
* Assuming you believe Mormonism is a branch of Christianity
I was just at a parents' mixer for my daughter's schools, and you realise how incredibly hard it is for these companies.
Disney is facing pressure from the left, because people are cancelling their subscriptions, and pressure from the right, because advertising is being cancelled.
The current story running on the news networks is that Disney are trying to find a way for Kimmel to come back, but he's refusing to apolgise. And having watched the section in question, I must admit, why should he apoligise? It wasn't about Charlie Kirk, it was about Trump being a narcassist.
I don't really know how Disney (and other media companies) manage this. It's going to be very interesting.
He did made a false statement in the first part. Then he went for Trump (which is fair game). I think an apology he got the first bit wrong would have be fine and everybody moves on, but it sounds like he told Iger to do one and he was going to double down on it all. Which then puts Iger / Disney in a difficult position.
In the recent past they have stuck to their guns when they have binned people of, and in case of Gina Carano eventually had to pay out a lot of money.
What was the "false statement"? It all seemed perfectly reasonable to me. If Kimmel did make a "false statement" and deserves to be cancelled, can we cancel Trump every time he makes a "false statement"?
Kimmel - "the Maga gang is desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them"
Kimmel is clearly saying he believes it is a fact that the shooter was part of the MAGA clan. We don't know for certain, but it doesn't appear true. And I don't think it is a wise thing to be saying.
And as I say, I think, a quick apology about, well we don't actually know the motivations of the shooter at the moment in time, I shouldn't really have said that....end of story....back to Trump bashing which he is free to do (albeit the viewers don't seem very interested these days).
It's not true that the killer was MAGA.
On the other hand, he was a white kid from a Christian* middle class family.
* Assuming you believe Mormonism is a branch of Christianity
Inaccurate and unwise, but the rest about Trump weird reaction, absolutely fair game. That is why he could even have done a I apologized if people got the wrong end of the stick / were offended about that first sentence. And that should be the end of the matter.
It appears Disney gave him an out and he instead decided to do the opposite. Which then leaves everybody in a very tricky spot. But now its blowing up into something way out of proportion.
This isn't Bud Light where calling all your customers knuckle dragging morons, well its not surprising they get pissed and there will be a massive reaction.
I was just at a parents' mixer for my daughter's schools, and you realise how incredibly hard it is for these companies.
Disney is facing pressure from the left, because people are cancelling their subscriptions, and pressure from the right, because advertising is being cancelled.
The current story running on the news networks is that Disney are trying to find a way for Kimmel to come back, but he's refusing to apolgise. And having watched the section in question, I must admit, why should he apoligise? It wasn't about Charlie Kirk, it was about Trump being a narcassist.
I don't really know how Disney (and other media companies) manage this. It's going to be very interesting.
He did made a false statement in the first part. Then he went for Trump (which is fair game). I think an apology he got the first bit wrong would have be fine and everybody moves on, but it sounds like he told Iger to do one and he was going to double down on it all. Which then puts Iger / Disney in a difficult position.
In the recent past they have stuck to their guns when they have binned people of, and in case of Gina Carano eventually had to pay out a lot of money.
What was the "false statement"? It all seemed perfectly reasonable to me. If Kimmel did make a "false statement" and deserves to be cancelled, can we cancel Trump every time he makes a "false statement"?
Kimmel - "the Maga gang is desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them"
Kimmel is clearly saying he believes it is a fact that the shooter was part of the MAGA clan. We don't know for certain, but it doesn't appear true. And I don't think it is a wise thing to be saying.
And as I say, I think, a quick apology about, well we don't actually know the motivations of the shooter at the moment in time, I shouldn't really have said that....end of story....back to Trump bashing which he is free to do (albeit the viewers don't seem very interested these days).
From what we know about Tyler Robinson, it is clear that he is "one of them". A small town boy from the reddest part of one of the reddest states. Gun culture, father formerly in law enforcement and a Mormon minister. Solidly white Christian MAGA Republicans. It seems that he had good relationships with his family, to the point of borrowing his grandfather's rifle.
Now it may well be that he was in a relationship with his flat mate, who may have some degree of gender confusion, but there is no known expression of any "radical left politics" on Social Media or the like so far. Tyler seems a fairly apolitical gamer.
Whatever motivated him to kill Kirk springs from solid MAGA culture, perhaps some form of rebellion against that stifling small town conformity, but MAGA roots nonetheless.
If Tyler really was a "radical leftist" then why did he stay in such a place? He and his flat mate could easily moved to the big city, even Salt Lake City has a vibrant political and LGBT+ culture, let alone other big cities, but they didn't.
I am sure more will come out in time, but it is clear that Tyler comes from a very MAGA background and indeed is "one of them" or at least was "one of them". There's a bit of the "no true Scotsman" circular fallacy to this. No true MAGA American would shoot another MAGA American, but he did.
I was just at a parents' mixer for my daughter's schools, and you realise how incredibly hard it is for these companies.
Disney is facing pressure from the left, because people are cancelling their subscriptions, and pressure from the right, because advertising is being cancelled.
The current story running on the news networks is that Disney are trying to find a way for Kimmel to come back, but he's refusing to apolgise. And having watched the section in question, I must admit, why should he apoligise? It wasn't about Charlie Kirk, it was about Trump being a narcassist.
I don't really know how Disney (and other media companies) manage this. It's going to be very interesting.
He did made a false statement in the first part. Then he went for Trump (which is fair game). I think an apology he got the first bit wrong would have be fine and everybody moves on, but it sounds like he told Iger to do one and he was going to double down on it all. Which then puts Iger / Disney in a difficult position.
In the recent past they have stuck to their guns when they have binned people of, and in case of Gina Carano eventually had to pay out a lot of money.
What was the "false statement"? It all seemed perfectly reasonable to me. If Kimmel did make a "false statement" and deserves to be cancelled, can we cancel Trump every time he makes a "false statement"?
Kimmel - "the Maga gang is desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them"
Kimmel is clearly saying he believes it is a fact that the shooter was part of the MAGA clan. We don't know for certain, but it doesn't appear true. And I don't think it is a wise thing to be saying.
And as I say, I think, a quick apology about, well we don't actually know the motivations of the shooter at the moment in time, I shouldn't really have said that....end of story....back to Trump bashing which he is free to do (albeit the viewers don't seem very interested these days).
From what we know about Tyler Robinson, it is clear that he is "one of them". A small town boy from the reddest part of one of the reddest states. Gun culture, father formerly in law enforcement and a Mormon minister. Solidly white Christian MAGA Republicans. It seems that he had good relationships with his family, to the point of borrowing his grandfather's rifle.
Now it may well be that he was in a relationship with his flat mate, who may have some degree of gender confusion, but there is no known expression of any "radical left politics" on Social Media or the like so far. Tyler seems a fairly apolitical gamer.
Whatever motivated him to kill Kirk springs from solid MAGA culture, perhaps some form of rebellion against that stifling small town conformity, but MAGA roots nonetheless.
If Tyler really was a "radical leftist" then why did he stay in such a place? He and his flat mate could easily moved to the big city, even Salt Lake City has a vibrant political and LGBT+ culture, let alone other big cities, but they didn't.
I am sure more will come out in time, but it is clear that Tyler comes from a very MAGA background and indeed is "one of them" or at least was "one of them".
I deliberately haven't speculated. We don't just know. I think its unwise to pick up the bits and pieces, as it appears very complicated.
But you can't say just because of somebodies family background that is one of them. My extended family are all very left wing, I come from a part of the country that has basically always voted for Labour MPs, my partner is very left wing. So somebody doing a bit "google" of my life, might easily go, well he is clearly "one of them lefties". Then if they looked at my posting on here, they would be a bit confused.
So making a definite statement I think is unwise. I think it was unwise of Kimmel to do so. And an swift apology about confusion / misunderstanding would have been enough for everybody to move on.
I was just at a parents' mixer for my daughter's schools, and you realise how incredibly hard it is for these companies.
Disney is facing pressure from the left, because people are cancelling their subscriptions, and pressure from the right, because advertising is being cancelled.
The current story running on the news networks is that Disney are trying to find a way for Kimmel to come back, but he's refusing to apolgise. And having watched the section in question, I must admit, why should he apoligise? It wasn't about Charlie Kirk, it was about Trump being a narcassist.
I don't really know how Disney (and other media companies) manage this. It's going to be very interesting.
He did made a false statement in the first part. Then he went for Trump (which is fair game). I think an apology he got the first bit wrong would have be fine and everybody moves on, but it sounds like he told Iger to do one and he was going to double down on it all. Which then puts Iger / Disney in a difficult position.
In the recent past they have stuck to their guns when they have binned people of, and in case of Gina Carano eventually had to pay out a lot of money.
What was the "false statement"? It all seemed perfectly reasonable to me. If Kimmel did make a "false statement" and deserves to be cancelled, can we cancel Trump every time he makes a "false statement"?
Kimmel - "the Maga gang is desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them"
Kimmel is clearly saying he believes it is a fact that the shooter was part of the MAGA clan. We don't know for certain, but it doesn't appear true. And I don't think it is a wise thing to be saying.
And as I say, I think, a quick apology about, well we don't actually know the motivations of the shooter at the moment in time, I shouldn't really have said that....end of story....back to Trump bashing which he is free to do (albeit the viewers don't seem very interested these days).
From what we know about Tyler Robinson, it is clear that he is "one of them". A small town boy from the reddest part of one of the reddest states. Gun culture, father formerly in law enforcement and a Mormon minister. Solidly white Christian MAGA Republicans. It seems that he had good relationships with his family, to the point of borrowing his grandfather's rifle.
Now it may well be that he was in a relationship with his flat mate, who may have some degree of gender confusion, but there is no known expression of any "radical left politics" on Social Media or the like so far. Tyler seems a fairly apolitical gamer.
Whatever motivated him to kill Kirk springs from solid MAGA culture, perhaps some form of rebellion against that stifling small town conformity, but MAGA roots nonetheless.
If Tyler really was a "radical leftist" then why did he stay in such a place? He and his flat mate could easily moved to the big city, even Salt Lake City has a vibrant political and LGBT+ culture, let alone other big cities, but they didn't.
I am sure more will come out in time, but it is clear that Tyler comes from a very MAGA background and indeed is "one of them" or at least was "one of them". There's a bit of the "no true Scotsman" circular fallacy to this. No true MAGA American would shoot another MAGA American, but he did.
"I am sure more will come out in time, "
Whilst I agree with the general sentiment of your post, I'd just point out that the MAGAisation of the judiciary, FBI and this case means that we will only get *very* biased information with varying levels of 'truth'.
I was just at a parents' mixer for my daughter's schools, and you realise how incredibly hard it is for these companies.
Disney is facing pressure from the left, because people are cancelling their subscriptions, and pressure from the right, because advertising is being cancelled.
The current story running on the news networks is that Disney are trying to find a way for Kimmel to come back, but he's refusing to apolgise. And having watched the section in question, I must admit, why should he apoligise? It wasn't about Charlie Kirk, it was about Trump being a narcassist.
I don't really know how Disney (and other media companies) manage this. It's going to be very interesting.
He did made a false statement in the first part. Then he went for Trump (which is fair game). I think an apology he got the first bit wrong would have be fine and everybody moves on, but it sounds like he told Iger to do one and he was going to double down on it all. Which then puts Iger / Disney in a difficult position.
In the recent past they have stuck to their guns when they have binned people of, and in case of Gina Carano eventually had to pay out a lot of money.
What was the "false statement"? It all seemed perfectly reasonable to me. If Kimmel did make a "false statement" and deserves to be cancelled, can we cancel Trump every time he makes a "false statement"?
Kimmel - "the Maga gang is desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them"
Kimmel is clearly saying he believes it is a fact that the shooter was part of the MAGA clan. We don't know for certain, but it doesn't appear true. And I don't think it is a wise thing to be saying.
And as I say, I think, a quick apology about, well we don't actually know the motivations of the shooter at the moment in time, I shouldn't really have said that....end of story....back to Trump bashing which he is free to do (albeit the viewers don't seem very interested these days).
From what we know about Tyler Robinson, it is clear that he is "one of them". A small town boy from the reddest part of one of the reddest states. Gun culture, father formerly in law enforcement and a Mormon minister. Solidly white Christian MAGA Republicans. It seems that he had good relationships with his family, to the point of borrowing his grandfather's rifle.
Now it may well be that he was in a relationship with his flat mate, who may have some degree of gender confusion, but there is no known expression of any "radical left politics" on Social Media or the like so far. Tyler seems a fairly apolitical gamer.
Whatever motivated him to kill Kirk springs from solid MAGA culture, perhaps some form of rebellion against that stifling small town conformity, but MAGA roots nonetheless.
If Tyler really was a "radical leftist" then why did he stay in such a place? He and his flat mate could easily moved to the big city, even Salt Lake City has a vibrant political and LGBT+ culture, let alone other big cities, but they didn't.
I am sure more will come out in time, but it is clear that Tyler comes from a very MAGA background and indeed is "one of them" or at least was "one of them".
I deliberately haven't speculated. We don't just know.
But you can't say just because of somebodies family background that is one of them. My family are all very left wing, I come from a part of the country that has basically always voted for Labour MPs, my partner is very left wing. So somebody doing a bit "google" of my life, might easily go, well he is clearly "one of them lefties".
So making a definite statement I think is unwise.
I am sure more will come out in time, but if you were painting a pen portrait of an All -American MAGA Republican boy then everything up to a week ago would have been a cliché of that.
Sure, sometimes people reject their family backgrounds, but there isn't much evidence of that so far.
The only really odd thing is the phrasing of his chats on Discord, which read more 1925 than 2025.
I was just at a parents' mixer for my daughter's schools, and you realise how incredibly hard it is for these companies.
Disney is facing pressure from the left, because people are cancelling their subscriptions, and pressure from the right, because advertising is being cancelled.
The current story running on the news networks is that Disney are trying to find a way for Kimmel to come back, but he's refusing to apolgise. And having watched the section in question, I must admit, why should he apoligise? It wasn't about Charlie Kirk, it was about Trump being a narcassist.
I don't really know how Disney (and other media companies) manage this. It's going to be very interesting.
He did made a false statement in the first part. Then he went for Trump (which is fair game). I think an apology he got the first bit wrong would have be fine and everybody moves on, but it sounds like he told Iger to do one and he was going to double down on it all. Which then puts Iger / Disney in a difficult position.
In the recent past they have stuck to their guns when they have binned people of, and in case of Gina Carano eventually had to pay out a lot of money.
What was the "false statement"? It all seemed perfectly reasonable to me. If Kimmel did make a "false statement" and deserves to be cancelled, can we cancel Trump every time he makes a "false statement"?
Kimmel - "the Maga gang is desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them"
Kimmel is clearly saying he believes it is a fact that the shooter was part of the MAGA clan. We don't know for certain, but it doesn't appear true. And I don't think it is a wise thing to be saying.
And as I say, I think, a quick apology about, well we don't actually know the motivations of the shooter at the moment in time, I shouldn't really have said that....end of story....back to Trump bashing which he is free to do (albeit the viewers don't seem very interested these days).
From what we know about Tyler Robinson, it is clear that he is "one of them". A small town boy from the reddest part of one of the reddest states. Gun culture, father formerly in law enforcement and a Mormon minister. Solidly white Christian MAGA Republicans. It seems that he had good relationships with his family, to the point of borrowing his grandfather's rifle.
Now it may well be that he was in a relationship with his flat mate, who may have some degree of gender confusion, but there is no known expression of any "radical left politics" on Social Media or the like so far. Tyler seems a fairly apolitical gamer.
Whatever motivated him to kill Kirk springs from solid MAGA culture, perhaps some form of rebellion against that stifling small town conformity, but MAGA roots nonetheless.
If Tyler really was a "radical leftist" then why did he stay in such a place? He and his flat mate could easily moved to the big city, even Salt Lake City has a vibrant political and LGBT+ culture, let alone other big cities, but they didn't.
I am sure more will come out in time, but it is clear that Tyler comes from a very MAGA background and indeed is "one of them" or at least was "one of them".
I deliberately haven't speculated. We don't just know.
But you can't say just because of somebodies family background that is one of them. My family are all very left wing, I come from a part of the country that has basically always voted for Labour MPs, my partner is very left wing. So somebody doing a bit "google" of my life, might easily go, well he is clearly "one of them lefties".
So making a definite statement I think is unwise.
I am sure more will come out in time, but if you were painting a pen portrait of an All -American MAGA Republican boy then everything up to a week ago would have been a cliché of that.
Sure, sometimes people reject their family backgrounds, but there isn't much evidence of that so far.
The only really odd thing is the phrasing of his chats on Discord, which read more 1925 than 2025.
Its a confusing picture all round. There are conflicting nuggets and claims of what he said to different people. We may never fully know.
I was just at a parents' mixer for my daughter's schools, and you realise how incredibly hard it is for these companies.
Disney is facing pressure from the left, because people are cancelling their subscriptions, and pressure from the right, because advertising is being cancelled.
The current story running on the news networks is that Disney are trying to find a way for Kimmel to come back, but he's refusing to apolgise. And having watched the section in question, I must admit, why should he apoligise? It wasn't about Charlie Kirk, it was about Trump being a narcassist.
I don't really know how Disney (and other media companies) manage this. It's going to be very interesting.
He did made a false statement in the first part. Then he went for Trump (which is fair game). I think an apology he got the first bit wrong would have be fine and everybody moves on, but it sounds like he told Iger to do one and he was going to double down on it all. Which then puts Iger / Disney in a difficult position.
In the recent past they have stuck to their guns when they have binned people of, and in case of Gina Carano eventually had to pay out a lot of money.
What was the "false statement"? It all seemed perfectly reasonable to me. If Kimmel did make a "false statement" and deserves to be cancelled, can we cancel Trump every time he makes a "false statement"?
Kimmel - "the Maga gang is desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them"
Kimmel is clearly saying he believes it is a fact that the shooter was part of the MAGA clan. We don't know for certain, but it doesn't appear true. And I don't think it is a wise thing to be saying.
And as I say, I think, a quick apology about, well we don't actually know the motivations of the shooter at the moment in time, I shouldn't really have said that....end of story....back to Trump bashing which he is free to do (albeit the viewers don't seem very interested these days).
From what we know about Tyler Robinson, it is clear that he is "one of them". A small town boy from the reddest part of one of the reddest states. Gun culture, father formerly in law enforcement and a Mormon minister. Solidly white Christian MAGA Republicans. It seems that he had good relationships with his family, to the point of borrowing his grandfather's rifle.
Now it may well be that he was in a relationship with his flat mate, who may have some degree of gender confusion, but there is no known expression of any "radical left politics" on Social Media or the like so far. Tyler seems a fairly apolitical gamer.
Whatever motivated him to kill Kirk springs from solid MAGA culture, perhaps some form of rebellion against that stifling small town conformity, but MAGA roots nonetheless.
If Tyler really was a "radical leftist" then why did he stay in such a place? He and his flat mate could easily moved to the big city, even Salt Lake City has a vibrant political and LGBT+ culture, let alone other big cities, but they didn't.
I am sure more will come out in time, but it is clear that Tyler comes from a very MAGA background and indeed is "one of them" or at least was "one of them".
I deliberately haven't speculated. We don't just know. I think its unwise to pick up the bits and pieces, as it appears very complicated.
But you can't say just because of somebodies family background that is one of them. My extended family are all very left wing, I come from a part of the country that has basically always voted for Labour MPs, my partner is very left wing. So somebody doing a bit "google" of my life, might easily go, well he is clearly "one of them lefties". Then if they looked at my posting on here, they would be a bit confused.
So making a definite statement I think is unwise. I think it was unwise of Kimmel to do so. And an swift apology about confusion / misunderstanding would have been enough for everybody to move on.
Yes, but you are an adult, who has had many years or decades to develop your own views. The suspect is a 22 year-old, who was raised for most of those 22 years in a gun-totin' family that is *far* from left-wing. That is his background. He is, for all intents and purposes 'one of them' in background, even *if* he has recently moved politically.
But as I keep on having to say: it might be that he had multiple reasons to commit this act, and they might even be unclear to him.
I was just at a parents' mixer for my daughter's schools, and you realise how incredibly hard it is for these companies.
Disney is facing pressure from the left, because people are cancelling their subscriptions, and pressure from the right, because advertising is being cancelled.
The current story running on the news networks is that Disney are trying to find a way for Kimmel to come back, but he's refusing to apolgise. And having watched the section in question, I must admit, why should he apoligise? It wasn't about Charlie Kirk, it was about Trump being a narcassist.
I don't really know how Disney (and other media companies) manage this. It's going to be very interesting.
He did made a false statement in the first part. Then he went for Trump (which is fair game). I think an apology he got the first bit wrong would have be fine and everybody moves on, but it sounds like he told Iger to do one and he was going to double down on it all. Which then puts Iger / Disney in a difficult position.
In the recent past they have stuck to their guns when they have binned people of, and in case of Gina Carano eventually had to pay out a lot of money.
What was the "false statement"? It all seemed perfectly reasonable to me. If Kimmel did make a "false statement" and deserves to be cancelled, can we cancel Trump every time he makes a "false statement"?
Kimmel - "the Maga gang is desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them"
Kimmel is clearly saying he believes it is a fact that the shooter was part of the MAGA clan. We don't know for certain, but it doesn't appear true. And I don't think it is a wise thing to be saying.
And as I say, I think, a quick apology about, well we don't actually know the motivations of the shooter at the moment in time, I shouldn't really have said that....end of story....back to Trump bashing which he is free to do (albeit the viewers don't seem very interested these days).
From what we know about Tyler Robinson, it is clear that he is "one of them". A small town boy from the reddest part of one of the reddest states. Gun culture, father formerly in law enforcement and a Mormon minister. Solidly white Christian MAGA Republicans. It seems that he had good relationships with his family, to the point of borrowing his grandfather's rifle.
Now it may well be that he was in a relationship with his flat mate, who may have some degree of gender confusion, but there is no known expression of any "radical left politics" on Social Media or the like so far. Tyler seems a fairly apolitical gamer.
Whatever motivated him to kill Kirk springs from solid MAGA culture, perhaps some form of rebellion against that stifling small town conformity, but MAGA roots nonetheless.
If Tyler really was a "radical leftist" then why did he stay in such a place? He and his flat mate could easily moved to the big city, even Salt Lake City has a vibrant political and LGBT+ culture, let alone other big cities, but they didn't.
I am sure more will come out in time, but it is clear that Tyler comes from a very MAGA background and indeed is "one of them" or at least was "one of them".
I deliberately haven't speculated. We don't just know. I think its unwise to pick up the bits and pieces, as it appears very complicated.
But you can't say just because of somebodies family background that is one of them. My extended family are all very left wing, I come from a part of the country that has basically always voted for Labour MPs, my partner is very left wing. So somebody doing a bit "google" of my life, might easily go, well he is clearly "one of them lefties". Then if they looked at my posting on here, they would be a bit confused.
So making a definite statement I think is unwise. I think it was unwise of Kimmel to do so. And an swift apology about confusion / misunderstanding would have been enough for everybody to move on.
Yes, but you are an adult, who has had many years or decades to develop your own views. The suspect is a 22 year-old, who was raised for most of those 22 years in a gun-totin' family that is *far* from left-wing. That is his background. He is, for all intents and purposes 'one of them' in background, even *if* he has recently moved politically.
But as I keep on having to say: it might be that he had multiple reasons to commit this act, and they might even be unclear to him.
I have a very good friend who was brought up in a religious household (not in the UK), they are very right wing, some of his immediate family are outright racists and pretty sure most vote for far right parties in their home country. When I met said friend it was at university, he is very left wing in his views from day one and it wasn't a recent "conversion", but doesn't talk about them with his family because it will just cause arguments.
Again it would be easy to paint him (if you didn't know) as "one of them".
Kimmel missed the mark with that one statement. The rest of the monologue was fine, it wasn't that funny, but Trump being Trump has stopped being funny ages ago.
I was just at a parents' mixer for my daughter's schools, and you realise how incredibly hard it is for these companies.
Disney is facing pressure from the left, because people are cancelling their subscriptions, and pressure from the right, because advertising is being cancelled.
The current story running on the news networks is that Disney are trying to find a way for Kimmel to come back, but he's refusing to apolgise. And having watched the section in question, I must admit, why should he apoligise? It wasn't about Charlie Kirk, it was about Trump being a narcassist.
I don't really know how Disney (and other media companies) manage this. It's going to be very interesting.
He did made a false statement in the first part. Then he went for Trump (which is fair game). I think an apology he got the first bit wrong would have be fine and everybody moves on, but it sounds like he told Iger to do one and he was going to double down on it all. Which then puts Iger / Disney in a difficult position.
In the recent past they have stuck to their guns when they have binned people of, and in case of Gina Carano eventually had to pay out a lot of money.
What was the "false statement"? It all seemed perfectly reasonable to me. If Kimmel did make a "false statement" and deserves to be cancelled, can we cancel Trump every time he makes a "false statement"?
Kimmel - "the Maga gang is desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them"
Kimmel is clearly saying he believes it is a fact that the shooter was part of the MAGA clan. We don't know for certain, but it doesn't appear true. And I don't think it is a wise thing to be saying.
And as I say, I think, a quick apology about, well we don't actually know the motivations of the shooter at the moment in time, I shouldn't really have said that....end of story....back to Trump bashing which he is free to do (albeit the viewers don't seem very interested these days).
I don't see an inconsistency in what Kimmel has said. He has chosen his words carefully. He doesn't actually confirm that Robinson is MAGA. Kimmel states "the MAGA gang is desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them". This is factually correct. Where has Kimmel claimed Robinson is MAGA? Now Kimmel may have disingenuously drawn you in to your false conclusion. However it is false nonetheless.
I was just at a parents' mixer for my daughter's schools, and you realise how incredibly hard it is for these companies.
Disney is facing pressure from the left, because people are cancelling their subscriptions, and pressure from the right, because advertising is being cancelled.
The current story running on the news networks is that Disney are trying to find a way for Kimmel to come back, but he's refusing to apolgise. And having watched the section in question, I must admit, why should he apoligise? It wasn't about Charlie Kirk, it was about Trump being a narcassist.
I don't really know how Disney (and other media companies) manage this. It's going to be very interesting.
He did made a false statement in the first part. Then he went for Trump (which is fair game). I think an apology he got the first bit wrong would have be fine and everybody moves on, but it sounds like he told Iger to do one and he was going to double down on it all. Which then puts Iger / Disney in a difficult position.
In the recent past they have stuck to their guns when they have binned people of, and in case of Gina Carano eventually had to pay out a lot of money.
What was the "false statement"? It all seemed perfectly reasonable to me. If Kimmel did make a "false statement" and deserves to be cancelled, can we cancel Trump every time he makes a "false statement"?
Kimmel - "the Maga gang is desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them"
Kimmel is clearly saying he believes it is a fact that the shooter was part of the MAGA clan. We don't know for certain, but it doesn't appear true. And I don't think it is a wise thing to be saying.
And as I say, I think, a quick apology about, well we don't actually know the motivations of the shooter at the moment in time, I shouldn't really have said that....end of story....back to Trump bashing which he is free to do (albeit the viewers don't seem very interested these days).
I don't see an inconsistency in what Kimmel has said. He has chosen his words carefully. He doesn't actually confirm that Robinson is MAGA. Kimmel states "the MAGA gang is desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them". This is factually correct. Where has Kimmel claimed Robinson is MAGA? Now Kimmel may have disingenuously drawn you in to your false conclusion. However it is false nonetheless.
Ok, lets for arguments sack he is doing what you state. GIven what has gone on, I still think that is a very unwise thing to say. He is free to say it, but I think its unwise, it will draw a lot of people to "false conclusions". No need to even go there. And its not part of a "funny".
As I said down thread the easy off ramp is the classical political I am sorry if people were offended by that bit.
That is appeared to what was offered to him and instead he said screw you all, i am going home to write an even more hot take on things. To which Chief Winnie the Pooh appears to have said no honey for you. And then its all got rather out of hand.
I was just at a parents' mixer for my daughter's schools, and you realise how incredibly hard it is for these companies.
Disney is facing pressure from the left, because people are cancelling their subscriptions, and pressure from the right, because advertising is being cancelled.
The current story running on the news networks is that Disney are trying to find a way for Kimmel to come back, but he's refusing to apolgise. And having watched the section in question, I must admit, why should he apoligise? It wasn't about Charlie Kirk, it was about Trump being a narcassist.
I don't really know how Disney (and other media companies) manage this. It's going to be very interesting.
He did made a false statement in the first part. Then he went for Trump (which is fair game). I think an apology he got the first bit wrong would have be fine and everybody moves on, but it sounds like he told Iger to do one and he was going to double down on it all. Which then puts Iger / Disney in a difficult position.
In the recent past they have stuck to their guns when they have binned people of, and in case of Gina Carano eventually had to pay out a lot of money.
What was the "false statement"? It all seemed perfectly reasonable to me. If Kimmel did make a "false statement" and deserves to be cancelled, can we cancel Trump every time he makes a "false statement"?
Kimmel - "the Maga gang is desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them"
Kimmel is clearly saying he believes it is a fact that the shooter was part of the MAGA clan. We don't know for certain, but it doesn't appear true. And I don't think it is a wise thing to be saying.
And as I say, I think, a quick apology about, well we don't actually know the motivations of the shooter at the moment in time, I shouldn't really have said that....end of story....back to Trump bashing which he is free to do (albeit the viewers don't seem very interested these days).
From what we know about Tyler Robinson, it is clear that he is "one of them". A small town boy from the reddest part of one of the reddest states. Gun culture, father formerly in law enforcement and a Mormon minister. Solidly white Christian MAGA Republicans. It seems that he had good relationships with his family, to the point of borrowing his grandfather's rifle.
Now it may well be that he was in a relationship with his flat mate, who may have some degree of gender confusion, but there is no known expression of any "radical left politics" on Social Media or the like so far. Tyler seems a fairly apolitical gamer.
Whatever motivated him to kill Kirk springs from solid MAGA culture, perhaps some form of rebellion against that stifling small town conformity, but MAGA roots nonetheless.
If Tyler really was a "radical leftist" then why did he stay in such a place? He and his flat mate could easily moved to the big city, even Salt Lake City has a vibrant political and LGBT+ culture, let alone other big cities, but they didn't.
I am sure more will come out in time, but it is clear that Tyler comes from a very MAGA background and indeed is "one of them" or at least was "one of them".
I deliberately haven't speculated. We don't just know. I think its unwise to pick up the bits and pieces, as it appears very complicated.
But you can't say just because of somebodies family background that is one of them. My extended family are all very left wing, I come from a part of the country that has basically always voted for Labour MPs, my partner is very left wing. So somebody doing a bit "google" of my life, might easily go, well he is clearly "one of them lefties". Then if they looked at my posting on here, they would be a bit confused.
So making a definite statement I think is unwise. I think it was unwise of Kimmel to do so. And an swift apology about confusion / misunderstanding would have been enough for everybody to move on.
Yes, but you are an adult, who has had many years or decades to develop your own views. The suspect is a 22 year-old, who was raised for most of those 22 years in a gun-totin' family that is *far* from left-wing. That is his background. He is, for all intents and purposes 'one of them' in background, even *if* he has recently moved politically.
But as I keep on having to say: it might be that he had multiple reasons to commit this act, and they might even be unclear to him.
I have a very good friend who was brought up in a religious household (not in the UK), they are very right wing, some of his immediate family are outright racists and pretty sure most vote for far right parties in their home country. When I met said friend it was at university, he is very left wing in his views from day one and it wasn't a recent "conversion", but doesn't talk about them with his family because it will just cause arguments.
Again it would be easy to paint him (if you didn't know) as "one of them".
Kimmel missed the mark with that one statement. The rest of the monologue was fine, it wasn't that funny, but Trump being Trump has stopped being funny ages ago.
You are really, really stretching here. He is 'one of them' for a number of reasons; if he walked into a bar, they would see 'one of them' and not 'one of the other'. He was raised as 'one of them'. He could fire guns like 'one of them'.
The right's attempts to disown him are f'ing hilarious. Even *if* - and it is a big conditional - he became a massive left-wing @sshat in the last few months or years, he was undoubtedly one of the right it terms of background and upbringing. Any violence may well have roots far back into that upbringing.
I was just at a parents' mixer for my daughter's schools, and you realise how incredibly hard it is for these companies.
Disney is facing pressure from the left, because people are cancelling their subscriptions, and pressure from the right, because advertising is being cancelled.
The current story running on the news networks is that Disney are trying to find a way for Kimmel to come back, but he's refusing to apolgise. And having watched the section in question, I must admit, why should he apoligise? It wasn't about Charlie Kirk, it was about Trump being a narcassist.
I don't really know how Disney (and other media companies) manage this. It's going to be very interesting.
He did made a false statement in the first part. Then he went for Trump (which is fair game). I think an apology he got the first bit wrong would have be fine and everybody moves on, but it sounds like he told Iger to do one and he was going to double down on it all. Which then puts Iger / Disney in a difficult position.
In the recent past they have stuck to their guns when they have binned people of, and in case of Gina Carano eventually had to pay out a lot of money.
What was the "false statement"? It all seemed perfectly reasonable to me. If Kimmel did make a "false statement" and deserves to be cancelled, can we cancel Trump every time he makes a "false statement"?
Kimmel - "the Maga gang is desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them"
Kimmel is clearly saying he believes it is a fact that the shooter was part of the MAGA clan. We don't know for certain, but it doesn't appear true. And I don't think it is a wise thing to be saying.
And as I say, I think, a quick apology about, well we don't actually know the motivations of the shooter at the moment in time, I shouldn't really have said that....end of story....back to Trump bashing which he is free to do (albeit the viewers don't seem very interested these days).
From what we know about Tyler Robinson, it is clear that he is "one of them". A small town boy from the reddest part of one of the reddest states. Gun culture, father formerly in law enforcement and a Mormon minister. Solidly white Christian MAGA Republicans. It seems that he had good relationships with his family, to the point of borrowing his grandfather's rifle.
Now it may well be that he was in a relationship with his flat mate, who may have some degree of gender confusion, but there is no known expression of any "radical left politics" on Social Media or the like so far. Tyler seems a fairly apolitical gamer.
Whatever motivated him to kill Kirk springs from solid MAGA culture, perhaps some form of rebellion against that stifling small town conformity, but MAGA roots nonetheless.
If Tyler really was a "radical leftist" then why did he stay in such a place? He and his flat mate could easily moved to the big city, even Salt Lake City has a vibrant political and LGBT+ culture, let alone other big cities, but they didn't.
I am sure more will come out in time, but it is clear that Tyler comes from a very MAGA background and indeed is "one of them" or at least was "one of them".
I deliberately haven't speculated. We don't just know. I think its unwise to pick up the bits and pieces, as it appears very complicated.
But you can't say just because of somebodies family background that is one of them. My extended family are all very left wing, I come from a part of the country that has basically always voted for Labour MPs, my partner is very left wing. So somebody doing a bit "google" of my life, might easily go, well he is clearly "one of them lefties". Then if they looked at my posting on here, they would be a bit confused.
So making a definite statement I think is unwise. I think it was unwise of Kimmel to do so. And an swift apology about confusion / misunderstanding would have been enough for everybody to move on.
Yes, but you are an adult, who has had many years or decades to develop your own views. The suspect is a 22 year-old, who was raised for most of those 22 years in a gun-totin' family that is *far* from left-wing. That is his background. He is, for all intents and purposes 'one of them' in background, even *if* he has recently moved politically.
But as I keep on having to say: it might be that he had multiple reasons to commit this act, and they might even be unclear to him.
I have a very good friend who was brought up in a religious household (not in the UK), they are very right wing, some of his immediate family are outright racists and pretty sure most vote for far right parties in their home country. When I met said friend it was at university, he is very left wing in his views from day one and it wasn't a recent "conversion", but doesn't talk about them with his family because it will just cause arguments.
Again it would be easy to paint him (if you didn't know) as "one of them".
Kimmel missed the mark with that one statement. The rest of the monologue was fine, it wasn't that funny, but Trump being Trump has stopped being funny ages ago.
You are really, really stretching here. He is 'one of them' for a number of reasons; if he walked into a bar, they would see 'one of them' and not 'one of the other'. He was raised as 'one of them'. He could fire guns like 'one of them'.
The right's attempts to disown him are f'ing hilarious. Even *if* - and it is a big conditional - he became a massive left-wing @sshat in the last few months or years, he was undoubtedly one of the right it terms of background and upbringing. Any violence may well have roots far back into that upbringing.
IMO, thats some pretty dodgy "profiling". If we were talking about say a black guy from the Projects, are we going to make such sweeping generalisations? Well you know he is definitely "one of them", they are all into drug dealing and shooting guns and alike.
Imagine Kimmel had claimed something along those lines.
I was just at a parents' mixer for my daughter's schools, and you realise how incredibly hard it is for these companies.
Disney is facing pressure from the left, because people are cancelling their subscriptions, and pressure from the right, because advertising is being cancelled.
The current story running on the news networks is that Disney are trying to find a way for Kimmel to come back, but he's refusing to apolgise. And having watched the section in question, I must admit, why should he apoligise? It wasn't about Charlie Kirk, it was about Trump being a narcassist.
I don't really know how Disney (and other media companies) manage this. It's going to be very interesting.
He did made a false statement in the first part. Then he went for Trump (which is fair game). I think an apology he got the first bit wrong would have be fine and everybody moves on, but it sounds like he told Iger to do one and he was going to double down on it all. Which then puts Iger / Disney in a difficult position.
In the recent past they have stuck to their guns when they have binned people of, and in case of Gina Carano eventually had to pay out a lot of money.
What was the "false statement"? It all seemed perfectly reasonable to me. If Kimmel did make a "false statement" and deserves to be cancelled, can we cancel Trump every time he makes a "false statement"?
Kimmel - "the Maga gang is desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them"
Kimmel is clearly saying he believes it is a fact that the shooter was part of the MAGA clan. We don't know for certain, but it doesn't appear true. And I don't think it is a wise thing to be saying.
And as I say, I think, a quick apology about, well we don't actually know the motivations of the shooter at the moment in time, I shouldn't really have said that....end of story....back to Trump bashing which he is free to do (albeit the viewers don't seem very interested these days).
From what we know about Tyler Robinson, it is clear that he is "one of them". A small town boy from the reddest part of one of the reddest states. Gun culture, father formerly in law enforcement and a Mormon minister. Solidly white Christian MAGA Republicans. It seems that he had good relationships with his family, to the point of borrowing his grandfather's rifle.
Now it may well be that he was in a relationship with his flat mate, who may have some degree of gender confusion, but there is no known expression of any "radical left politics" on Social Media or the like so far. Tyler seems a fairly apolitical gamer.
Whatever motivated him to kill Kirk springs from solid MAGA culture, perhaps some form of rebellion against that stifling small town conformity, but MAGA roots nonetheless.
If Tyler really was a "radical leftist" then why did he stay in such a place? He and his flat mate could easily moved to the big city, even Salt Lake City has a vibrant political and LGBT+ culture, let alone other big cities, but they didn't.
I am sure more will come out in time, but it is clear that Tyler comes from a very MAGA background and indeed is "one of them" or at least was "one of them".
I deliberately haven't speculated. We don't just know. I think its unwise to pick up the bits and pieces, as it appears very complicated.
But you can't say just because of somebodies family background that is one of them. My extended family are all very left wing, I come from a part of the country that has basically always voted for Labour MPs, my partner is very left wing. So somebody doing a bit "google" of my life, might easily go, well he is clearly "one of them lefties". Then if they looked at my posting on here, they would be a bit confused.
So making a definite statement I think is unwise. I think it was unwise of Kimmel to do so. And an swift apology about confusion / misunderstanding would have been enough for everybody to move on.
Yes, but you are an adult, who has had many years or decades to develop your own views. The suspect is a 22 year-old, who was raised for most of those 22 years in a gun-totin' family that is *far* from left-wing. That is his background. He is, for all intents and purposes 'one of them' in background, even *if* he has recently moved politically.
But as I keep on having to say: it might be that he had multiple reasons to commit this act, and they might even be unclear to him.
I have a very good friend who was brought up in a religious household (not in the UK), they are very right wing, some of his immediate family are outright racists and pretty sure most vote for far right parties in their home country. When I met said friend it was at university, he is very left wing in his views from day one and it wasn't a recent "conversion", but doesn't talk about them with his family because it will just cause arguments.
Again it would be easy to paint him (if you didn't know) as "one of them".
Kimmel missed the mark with that one statement. The rest of the monologue was fine, it wasn't that funny, but Trump being Trump has stopped being funny ages ago.
You are really, really stretching here. He is 'one of them' for a number of reasons; if he walked into a bar, they would see 'one of them' and not 'one of the other'. He was raised as 'one of them'. He could fire guns like 'one of them'.
The right's attempts to disown him are f'ing hilarious. Even *if* - and it is a big conditional - he became a massive left-wing @sshat in the last few months or years, he was undoubtedly one of the right it terms of background and upbringing. Any violence may well have roots far back into that upbringing.
It is possible that his lack of visible politics is in itself evidence of his rejection of MAGA, but that starts to seem very McCarthyite.
It's a bit like saying that not having a flag of St George visible in the background on your webcam shows that you hate England.
In other news, my son starting secondary school has been a little bit of an eye-opener on the way education has changed in the near-35 years since I left school.
The school gives every child an iPad (*). But as parents, we get web access to his due homework, and the grades for completed homework. His attendance, twice a day. His full timetable and teachers for each class, his behaviour, and any detentions. Even what he chose for dinner.
This seems massively more information, and much more immediate, than my parents got from my schools.
Whether it improves grades or not is a different matter...
I was just at a parents' mixer for my daughter's schools, and you realise how incredibly hard it is for these companies.
Disney is facing pressure from the left, because people are cancelling their subscriptions, and pressure from the right, because advertising is being cancelled.
The current story running on the news networks is that Disney are trying to find a way for Kimmel to come back, but he's refusing to apolgise. And having watched the section in question, I must admit, why should he apoligise? It wasn't about Charlie Kirk, it was about Trump being a narcassist.
I don't really know how Disney (and other media companies) manage this. It's going to be very interesting.
He did made a false statement in the first part. Then he went for Trump (which is fair game). I think an apology he got the first bit wrong would have be fine and everybody moves on, but it sounds like he told Iger to do one and he was going to double down on it all. Which then puts Iger / Disney in a difficult position.
In the recent past they have stuck to their guns when they have binned people of, and in case of Gina Carano eventually had to pay out a lot of money.
What was the "false statement"? It all seemed perfectly reasonable to me. If Kimmel did make a "false statement" and deserves to be cancelled, can we cancel Trump every time he makes a "false statement"?
Kimmel - "the Maga gang is desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them"
Kimmel is clearly saying he believes it is a fact that the shooter was part of the MAGA clan. We don't know for certain, but it doesn't appear true. And I don't think it is a wise thing to be saying.
And as I say, I think, a quick apology about, well we don't actually know the motivations of the shooter at the moment in time, I shouldn't really have said that....end of story....back to Trump bashing which he is free to do (albeit the viewers don't seem very interested these days).
From what we know about Tyler Robinson, it is clear that he is "one of them". A small town boy from the reddest part of one of the reddest states. Gun culture, father formerly in law enforcement and a Mormon minister. Solidly white Christian MAGA Republicans. It seems that he had good relationships with his family, to the point of borrowing his grandfather's rifle.
Now it may well be that he was in a relationship with his flat mate, who may have some degree of gender confusion, but there is no known expression of any "radical left politics" on Social Media or the like so far. Tyler seems a fairly apolitical gamer.
Whatever motivated him to kill Kirk springs from solid MAGA culture, perhaps some form of rebellion against that stifling small town conformity, but MAGA roots nonetheless.
If Tyler really was a "radical leftist" then why did he stay in such a place? He and his flat mate could easily moved to the big city, even Salt Lake City has a vibrant political and LGBT+ culture, let alone other big cities, but they didn't.
I am sure more will come out in time, but it is clear that Tyler comes from a very MAGA background and indeed is "one of them" or at least was "one of them".
I deliberately haven't speculated. We don't just know. I think its unwise to pick up the bits and pieces, as it appears very complicated.
But you can't say just because of somebodies family background that is one of them. My extended family are all very left wing, I come from a part of the country that has basically always voted for Labour MPs, my partner is very left wing. So somebody doing a bit "google" of my life, might easily go, well he is clearly "one of them lefties". Then if they looked at my posting on here, they would be a bit confused.
So making a definite statement I think is unwise. I think it was unwise of Kimmel to do so. And an swift apology about confusion / misunderstanding would have been enough for everybody to move on.
Yes, but you are an adult, who has had many years or decades to develop your own views. The suspect is a 22 year-old, who was raised for most of those 22 years in a gun-totin' family that is *far* from left-wing. That is his background. He is, for all intents and purposes 'one of them' in background, even *if* he has recently moved politically.
But as I keep on having to say: it might be that he had multiple reasons to commit this act, and they might even be unclear to him.
I have a very good friend who was brought up in a religious household (not in the UK), they are very right wing, some of his immediate family are outright racists and pretty sure most vote for far right parties in their home country. When I met said friend it was at university, he is very left wing in his views from day one and it wasn't a recent "conversion", but doesn't talk about them with his family because it will just cause arguments.
Again it would be easy to paint him (if you didn't know) as "one of them".
Kimmel missed the mark with that one statement. The rest of the monologue was fine, it wasn't that funny, but Trump being Trump has stopped being funny ages ago.
You are really, really stretching here. He is 'one of them' for a number of reasons; if he walked into a bar, they would see 'one of them' and not 'one of the other'. He was raised as 'one of them'. He could fire guns like 'one of them'.
The right's attempts to disown him are f'ing hilarious. Even *if* - and it is a big conditional - he became a massive left-wing @sshat in the last few months or years, he was undoubtedly one of the right it terms of background and upbringing. Any violence may well have roots far back into that upbringing.
IMO, thats some pretty dodgy "profiling". If we were talking about say a black guy from the Projects, are we going to make such sweeping generalisations? Well you know he is definitely "one of them", they are all into drug dealing and shooting guns and alike.
Imagine Kimmel had claimed something along those lines.
I just don't judge people like that.
What b/s. You are judging him, on rather sparse information from (what can only be seen as) biased sources, and ignoring much more of what we do know about him and his background.
I was just at a parents' mixer for my daughter's schools, and you realise how incredibly hard it is for these companies.
Disney is facing pressure from the left, because people are cancelling their subscriptions, and pressure from the right, because advertising is being cancelled.
The current story running on the news networks is that Disney are trying to find a way for Kimmel to come back, but he's refusing to apolgise. And having watched the section in question, I must admit, why should he apoligise? It wasn't about Charlie Kirk, it was about Trump being a narcassist.
I don't really know how Disney (and other media companies) manage this. It's going to be very interesting.
He did made a false statement in the first part. Then he went for Trump (which is fair game). I think an apology he got the first bit wrong would have be fine and everybody moves on, but it sounds like he told Iger to do one and he was going to double down on it all. Which then puts Iger / Disney in a difficult position.
In the recent past they have stuck to their guns when they have binned people of, and in case of Gina Carano eventually had to pay out a lot of money.
What was the "false statement"? It all seemed perfectly reasonable to me. If Kimmel did make a "false statement" and deserves to be cancelled, can we cancel Trump every time he makes a "false statement"?
Kimmel - "the Maga gang is desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them"
Kimmel is clearly saying he believes it is a fact that the shooter was part of the MAGA clan. We don't know for certain, but it doesn't appear true. And I don't think it is a wise thing to be saying.
And as I say, I think, a quick apology about, well we don't actually know the motivations of the shooter at the moment in time, I shouldn't really have said that....end of story....back to Trump bashing which he is free to do (albeit the viewers don't seem very interested these days).
From what we know about Tyler Robinson, it is clear that he is "one of them". A small town boy from the reddest part of one of the reddest states. Gun culture, father formerly in law enforcement and a Mormon minister. Solidly white Christian MAGA Republicans. It seems that he had good relationships with his family, to the point of borrowing his grandfather's rifle.
Now it may well be that he was in a relationship with his flat mate, who may have some degree of gender confusion, but there is no known expression of any "radical left politics" on Social Media or the like so far. Tyler seems a fairly apolitical gamer.
Whatever motivated him to kill Kirk springs from solid MAGA culture, perhaps some form of rebellion against that stifling small town conformity, but MAGA roots nonetheless.
If Tyler really was a "radical leftist" then why did he stay in such a place? He and his flat mate could easily moved to the big city, even Salt Lake City has a vibrant political and LGBT+ culture, let alone other big cities, but they didn't.
I am sure more will come out in time, but it is clear that Tyler comes from a very MAGA background and indeed is "one of them" or at least was "one of them".
I deliberately haven't speculated. We don't just know. I think its unwise to pick up the bits and pieces, as it appears very complicated.
But you can't say just because of somebodies family background that is one of them. My extended family are all very left wing, I come from a part of the country that has basically always voted for Labour MPs, my partner is very left wing. So somebody doing a bit "google" of my life, might easily go, well he is clearly "one of them lefties". Then if they looked at my posting on here, they would be a bit confused.
So making a definite statement I think is unwise. I think it was unwise of Kimmel to do so. And an swift apology about confusion / misunderstanding would have been enough for everybody to move on.
Yes, but you are an adult, who has had many years or decades to develop your own views. The suspect is a 22 year-old, who was raised for most of those 22 years in a gun-totin' family that is *far* from left-wing. That is his background. He is, for all intents and purposes 'one of them' in background, even *if* he has recently moved politically.
But as I keep on having to say: it might be that he had multiple reasons to commit this act, and they might even be unclear to him.
I have a very good friend who was brought up in a religious household (not in the UK), they are very right wing, some of his immediate family are outright racists and pretty sure most vote for far right parties in their home country. When I met said friend it was at university, he is very left wing in his views from day one and it wasn't a recent "conversion", but doesn't talk about them with his family because it will just cause arguments.
Again it would be easy to paint him (if you didn't know) as "one of them".
Kimmel missed the mark with that one statement. The rest of the monologue was fine, it wasn't that funny, but Trump being Trump has stopped being funny ages ago.
You are really, really stretching here. He is 'one of them' for a number of reasons; if he walked into a bar, they would see 'one of them' and not 'one of the other'. He was raised as 'one of them'. He could fire guns like 'one of them'.
The right's attempts to disown him are f'ing hilarious. Even *if* - and it is a big conditional - he became a massive left-wing @sshat in the last few months or years, he was undoubtedly one of the right it terms of background and upbringing. Any violence may well have roots far back into that upbringing.
It is possible that his lack of visible politics is in itself evidence of his rejection of MAGA, but that starts to seem very McCarthyite.
It's a bit like saying that not having a flag of St George visible in the background on your webcam shows that you hate England.
Do we even know how "MAGA" his family were. People vote for parties, they can say oh yes I supported x candidate. It doesn't mean they are absolute fanatical about it and that their whole life revolves around it. For most its the thing they do every 4 years and that's about it. With the US registered voter system, people can read far too much into that registration. People do it for all sorts of reasons.
I have been to Utah a number of times, it doesn't in general feel the same as those deep south states or even neighbouring Idaho, that has for instance had a white supremacist / militia issues.
There is way too many unknowns IMO to be throwing shade around.
In other news, my son starting secondary school has been a little bit of an eye-opener on the way education has changed in the near-35 years since I left school.
The school gives every child an iPad (*). But as parents, we get web access to his due homework, and the grades for completed homework. His attendance, twice a day. His full timetable and teachers for each class, his behaviour, and any detentions. Even what he chose for dinner.
This seems massively more information, and much more immediate, than my parents got from my schools.
Whether it improves grades or not is a different matter...
One of the problems with the Late Night hosts like Kimmel is they aren't really seen as comedians anymore. The monologues are highly political every night and always one sided. So its hard to say just jokes and that "we" have a go at everybody.
So its starting from a place where for lots of people, he is their team or the opponents teams. And of course been very quick to always dunk on everybody else who has got shit canned from the other team.
I would point out that not all the late night hosts are reliably left wing. Bill Maher is certainly not. And Jon Stewart has done a reasonable job of not being too partisan.
I would also point out that while the left has their late night comedians, the right has Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham.
It seems like left wing audiences like to mock, while right wing ones like to be outraged.
Bill Maher and Jon Stewart are by far the best of them, they’re both of the left but prepared to go for everyone when necessary. The comparator on the other side would be Greg Gutfeld on Fox.
Most importantly, they haven’t lost sight of the need to make things funny. You can get away with a very political commentary if it’s full of good jokes and makes people laugh.
I was just at a parents' mixer for my daughter's schools, and you realise how incredibly hard it is for these companies.
Disney is facing pressure from the left, because people are cancelling their subscriptions, and pressure from the right, because advertising is being cancelled.
The current story running on the news networks is that Disney are trying to find a way for Kimmel to come back, but he's refusing to apolgise. And having watched the section in question, I must admit, why should he apoligise? It wasn't about Charlie Kirk, it was about Trump being a narcassist.
I don't really know how Disney (and other media companies) manage this. It's going to be very interesting.
He did made a false statement in the first part. Then he went for Trump (which is fair game). I think an apology he got the first bit wrong would have be fine and everybody moves on, but it sounds like he told Iger to do one and he was going to double down on it all. Which then puts Iger / Disney in a difficult position.
In the recent past they have stuck to their guns when they have binned people of, and in case of Gina Carano eventually had to pay out a lot of money.
What was the "false statement"? It all seemed perfectly reasonable to me. If Kimmel did make a "false statement" and deserves to be cancelled, can we cancel Trump every time he makes a "false statement"?
Kimmel - "the Maga gang is desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them"
Kimmel is clearly saying he believes it is a fact that the shooter was part of the MAGA clan. We don't know for certain, but it doesn't appear true. And I don't think it is a wise thing to be saying.
And as I say, I think, a quick apology about, well we don't actually know the motivations of the shooter at the moment in time, I shouldn't really have said that....end of story....back to Trump bashing which he is free to do (albeit the viewers don't seem very interested these days).
From what we know about Tyler Robinson, it is clear that he is "one of them". A small town boy from the reddest part of one of the reddest states. Gun culture, father formerly in law enforcement and a Mormon minister. Solidly white Christian MAGA Republicans. It seems that he had good relationships with his family, to the point of borrowing his grandfather's rifle.
Now it may well be that he was in a relationship with his flat mate, who may have some degree of gender confusion, but there is no known expression of any "radical left politics" on Social Media or the like so far. Tyler seems a fairly apolitical gamer.
Whatever motivated him to kill Kirk springs from solid MAGA culture, perhaps some form of rebellion against that stifling small town conformity, but MAGA roots nonetheless.
If Tyler really was a "radical leftist" then why did he stay in such a place? He and his flat mate could easily moved to the big city, even Salt Lake City has a vibrant political and LGBT+ culture, let alone other big cities, but they didn't.
I am sure more will come out in time, but it is clear that Tyler comes from a very MAGA background and indeed is "one of them" or at least was "one of them".
I deliberately haven't speculated. We don't just know. I think its unwise to pick up the bits and pieces, as it appears very complicated.
But you can't say just because of somebodies family background that is one of them. My extended family are all very left wing, I come from a part of the country that has basically always voted for Labour MPs, my partner is very left wing. So somebody doing a bit "google" of my life, might easily go, well he is clearly "one of them lefties". Then if they looked at my posting on here, they would be a bit confused.
So making a definite statement I think is unwise. I think it was unwise of Kimmel to do so. And an swift apology about confusion / misunderstanding would have been enough for everybody to move on.
Yes, but you are an adult, who has had many years or decades to develop your own views. The suspect is a 22 year-old, who was raised for most of those 22 years in a gun-totin' family that is *far* from left-wing. That is his background. He is, for all intents and purposes 'one of them' in background, even *if* he has recently moved politically.
But as I keep on having to say: it might be that he had multiple reasons to commit this act, and they might even be unclear to him.
I have a very good friend who was brought up in a religious household (not in the UK), they are very right wing, some of his immediate family are outright racists and pretty sure most vote for far right parties in their home country. When I met said friend it was at university, he is very left wing in his views from day one and it wasn't a recent "conversion", but doesn't talk about them with his family because it will just cause arguments.
Again it would be easy to paint him (if you didn't know) as "one of them".
Kimmel missed the mark with that one statement. The rest of the monologue was fine, it wasn't that funny, but Trump being Trump has stopped being funny ages ago.
You are really, really stretching here. He is 'one of them' for a number of reasons; if he walked into a bar, they would see 'one of them' and not 'one of the other'. He was raised as 'one of them'. He could fire guns like 'one of them'.
The right's attempts to disown him are f'ing hilarious. Even *if* - and it is a big conditional - he became a massive left-wing @sshat in the last few months or years, he was undoubtedly one of the right it terms of background and upbringing. Any violence may well have roots far back into that upbringing.
IMO, thats some pretty dodgy "profiling". If we were talking about say a black guy from the Projects, are we going to make such sweeping generalisations? Well you know he is definitely "one of them", they are all into drug dealing and shooting guns and alike.
Imagine Kimmel had claimed something along those lines.
I just don't judge people like that.
What b/s. You are judging him, on rather sparse information from (what can only be seen as) biased sources, and ignoring much more of what we do know about him and his background.
Nobody seems to know. The authorities don't seem to know. It might not even be a left / right right. I don't know how you are so sure.
I am literally not judging him. I have said from the start I have no idea, there are too many conflicting bits and pieces and they are all via social media. I have stayed clear from linking to stuff. That is why I think its foolish to start pinning blame.
I was just at a parents' mixer for my daughter's schools, and you realise how incredibly hard it is for these companies.
Disney is facing pressure from the left, because people are cancelling their subscriptions, and pressure from the right, because advertising is being cancelled.
The current story running on the news networks is that Disney are trying to find a way for Kimmel to come back, but he's refusing to apolgise. And having watched the section in question, I must admit, why should he apoligise? It wasn't about Charlie Kirk, it was about Trump being a narcassist.
I don't really know how Disney (and other media companies) manage this. It's going to be very interesting.
He did made a false statement in the first part. Then he went for Trump (which is fair game). I think an apology he got the first bit wrong would have be fine and everybody moves on, but it sounds like he told Iger to do one and he was going to double down on it all. Which then puts Iger / Disney in a difficult position.
In the recent past they have stuck to their guns when they have binned people of, and in case of Gina Carano eventually had to pay out a lot of money.
What was the "false statement"? It all seemed perfectly reasonable to me. If Kimmel did make a "false statement" and deserves to be cancelled, can we cancel Trump every time he makes a "false statement"?
Kimmel - "the Maga gang is desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them"
Kimmel is clearly saying he believes it is a fact that the shooter was part of the MAGA clan. We don't know for certain, but it doesn't appear true. And I don't think it is a wise thing to be saying.
And as I say, I think, a quick apology about, well we don't actually know the motivations of the shooter at the moment in time, I shouldn't really have said that....end of story....back to Trump bashing which he is free to do (albeit the viewers don't seem very interested these days).
I don't see an inconsistency in what Kimmel has said. He has chosen his words carefully. He doesn't actually confirm that Robinson is MAGA. Kimmel states "the MAGA gang is desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them". This is factually correct. Where has Kimmel claimed Robinson is MAGA? Now Kimmel may have disingenuously drawn you in to your false conclusion. However it is false nonetheless.
Ok, lets for arguments sack he is doing what you state. GIven what has gone on, I still think that is a very unwise thing to say. He is free to say it, but I think its unwise, it will draw a lot of people to "false conclusions". No need to even go there. And its not part of a "funny".
As I said down thread the easy off ramp is the classical political I am sorry if people were offended by that bit.
That is appeared to what was offered to him and instead he said screw you all, i am going home to write an even more hot take on things. To which Chief Winnie the Pooh appears to have said no honey for you. And then its all got rather out of hand.
However, if everyone apologised for every time they say something that someone else can stretch the interpretation to take offence at, none of us would ever get anything done.
And if you think a politician's apology would have resolved this, I probably have a bridge to sell you.
I was just at a parents' mixer for my daughter's schools, and you realise how incredibly hard it is for these companies.
Disney is facing pressure from the left, because people are cancelling their subscriptions, and pressure from the right, because advertising is being cancelled.
The current story running on the news networks is that Disney are trying to find a way for Kimmel to come back, but he's refusing to apolgise. And having watched the section in question, I must admit, why should he apoligise? It wasn't about Charlie Kirk, it was about Trump being a narcassist.
I don't really know how Disney (and other media companies) manage this. It's going to be very interesting.
He did made a false statement in the first part. Then he went for Trump (which is fair game). I think an apology he got the first bit wrong would have be fine and everybody moves on, but it sounds like he told Iger to do one and he was going to double down on it all. Which then puts Iger / Disney in a difficult position.
In the recent past they have stuck to their guns when they have binned people of, and in case of Gina Carano eventually had to pay out a lot of money.
What was the "false statement"? It all seemed perfectly reasonable to me. If Kimmel did make a "false statement" and deserves to be cancelled, can we cancel Trump every time he makes a "false statement"?
Kimmel - "the Maga gang is desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them"
Kimmel is clearly saying he believes it is a fact that the shooter was part of the MAGA clan. We don't know for certain, but it doesn't appear true. And I don't think it is a wise thing to be saying.
And as I say, I think, a quick apology about, well we don't actually know the motivations of the shooter at the moment in time, I shouldn't really have said that....end of story....back to Trump bashing which he is free to do (albeit the viewers don't seem very interested these days).
From what we know about Tyler Robinson, it is clear that he is "one of them". A small town boy from the reddest part of one of the reddest states. Gun culture, father formerly in law enforcement and a Mormon minister. Solidly white Christian MAGA Republicans. It seems that he had good relationships with his family, to the point of borrowing his grandfather's rifle.
Now it may well be that he was in a relationship with his flat mate, who may have some degree of gender confusion, but there is no known expression of any "radical left politics" on Social Media or the like so far. Tyler seems a fairly apolitical gamer.
Whatever motivated him to kill Kirk springs from solid MAGA culture, perhaps some form of rebellion against that stifling small town conformity, but MAGA roots nonetheless.
If Tyler really was a "radical leftist" then why did he stay in such a place? He and his flat mate could easily moved to the big city, even Salt Lake City has a vibrant political and LGBT+ culture, let alone other big cities, but they didn't.
I am sure more will come out in time, but it is clear that Tyler comes from a very MAGA background and indeed is "one of them" or at least was "one of them".
I deliberately haven't speculated. We don't just know. I think its unwise to pick up the bits and pieces, as it appears very complicated.
But you can't say just because of somebodies family background that is one of them. My extended family are all very left wing, I come from a part of the country that has basically always voted for Labour MPs, my partner is very left wing. So somebody doing a bit "google" of my life, might easily go, well he is clearly "one of them lefties". Then if they looked at my posting on here, they would be a bit confused.
So making a definite statement I think is unwise. I think it was unwise of Kimmel to do so. And an swift apology about confusion / misunderstanding would have been enough for everybody to move on.
Yes, but you are an adult, who has had many years or decades to develop your own views. The suspect is a 22 year-old, who was raised for most of those 22 years in a gun-totin' family that is *far* from left-wing. That is his background. He is, for all intents and purposes 'one of them' in background, even *if* he has recently moved politically.
But as I keep on having to say: it might be that he had multiple reasons to commit this act, and they might even be unclear to him.
I have a very good friend who was brought up in a religious household (not in the UK), they are very right wing, some of his immediate family are outright racists and pretty sure most vote for far right parties in their home country. When I met said friend it was at university, he is very left wing in his views from day one and it wasn't a recent "conversion", but doesn't talk about them with his family because it will just cause arguments.
Again it would be easy to paint him (if you didn't know) as "one of them".
Kimmel missed the mark with that one statement. The rest of the monologue was fine, it wasn't that funny, but Trump being Trump has stopped being funny ages ago.
You are really, really stretching here. He is 'one of them' for a number of reasons; if he walked into a bar, they would see 'one of them' and not 'one of the other'. He was raised as 'one of them'. He could fire guns like 'one of them'.
The right's attempts to disown him are f'ing hilarious. Even *if* - and it is a big conditional - he became a massive left-wing @sshat in the last few months or years, he was undoubtedly one of the right it terms of background and upbringing. Any violence may well have roots far back into that upbringing.
IMO, thats some pretty dodgy "profiling". If we were talking about say a black guy from the Projects, are we going to make such sweeping generalisations? Well you know he is definitely "one of them", they are all into drug dealing and shooting guns and alike.
Imagine Kimmel had claimed something along those lines.
I just don't judge people like that.
What b/s. You are judging him, on rather sparse information from (what can only be seen as) biased sources, and ignoring much more of what we do know about him and his background.
None of us know. The authorities don't seem to know. It might not even be a left / right right. I don't know how you are so sure.
I am literally no judging him. I have said from the start I have no idea, there are too many conflicting bits and pieces and they are all via social media.
Yet you are 'sure' enough to attack Kimmel over it. Get a grip.
However, if everyone apologised for every time they say something that someone else can stretch the interpretation to take offence at, none of us would ever get anything done.
And if you think a politician's apology would have resolved this, I probably have a bridge to sell you.
The FCC chair has no problem with a host on Fox News suggesting killing homeless people
I was just at a parents' mixer for my daughter's schools, and you realise how incredibly hard it is for these companies.
Disney is facing pressure from the left, because people are cancelling their subscriptions, and pressure from the right, because advertising is being cancelled.
The current story running on the news networks is that Disney are trying to find a way for Kimmel to come back, but he's refusing to apolgise. And having watched the section in question, I must admit, why should he apoligise? It wasn't about Charlie Kirk, it was about Trump being a narcassist.
I don't really know how Disney (and other media companies) manage this. It's going to be very interesting.
He did made a false statement in the first part. Then he went for Trump (which is fair game). I think an apology he got the first bit wrong would have be fine and everybody moves on, but it sounds like he told Iger to do one and he was going to double down on it all. Which then puts Iger / Disney in a difficult position.
In the recent past they have stuck to their guns when they have binned people of, and in case of Gina Carano eventually had to pay out a lot of money.
What was the "false statement"? It all seemed perfectly reasonable to me. If Kimmel did make a "false statement" and deserves to be cancelled, can we cancel Trump every time he makes a "false statement"?
Kimmel - "the Maga gang is desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them"
Kimmel is clearly saying he believes it is a fact that the shooter was part of the MAGA clan. We don't know for certain, but it doesn't appear true. And I don't think it is a wise thing to be saying.
And as I say, I think, a quick apology about, well we don't actually know the motivations of the shooter at the moment in time, I shouldn't really have said that....end of story....back to Trump bashing which he is free to do (albeit the viewers don't seem very interested these days).
From what we know about Tyler Robinson, it is clear that he is "one of them". A small town boy from the reddest part of one of the reddest states. Gun culture, father formerly in law enforcement and a Mormon minister. Solidly white Christian MAGA Republicans. It seems that he had good relationships with his family, to the point of borrowing his grandfather's rifle.
Now it may well be that he was in a relationship with his flat mate, who may have some degree of gender confusion, but there is no known expression of any "radical left politics" on Social Media or the like so far. Tyler seems a fairly apolitical gamer.
Whatever motivated him to kill Kirk springs from solid MAGA culture, perhaps some form of rebellion against that stifling small town conformity, but MAGA roots nonetheless.
If Tyler really was a "radical leftist" then why did he stay in such a place? He and his flat mate could easily moved to the big city, even Salt Lake City has a vibrant political and LGBT+ culture, let alone other big cities, but they didn't.
I am sure more will come out in time, but it is clear that Tyler comes from a very MAGA background and indeed is "one of them" or at least was "one of them".
I deliberately haven't speculated. We don't just know. I think its unwise to pick up the bits and pieces, as it appears very complicated.
But you can't say just because of somebodies family background that is one of them. My extended family are all very left wing, I come from a part of the country that has basically always voted for Labour MPs, my partner is very left wing. So somebody doing a bit "google" of my life, might easily go, well he is clearly "one of them lefties". Then if they looked at my posting on here, they would be a bit confused.
So making a definite statement I think is unwise. I think it was unwise of Kimmel to do so. And an swift apology about confusion / misunderstanding would have been enough for everybody to move on.
Yes, but you are an adult, who has had many years or decades to develop your own views. The suspect is a 22 year-old, who was raised for most of those 22 years in a gun-totin' family that is *far* from left-wing. That is his background. He is, for all intents and purposes 'one of them' in background, even *if* he has recently moved politically.
But as I keep on having to say: it might be that he had multiple reasons to commit this act, and they might even be unclear to him.
I have a very good friend who was brought up in a religious household (not in the UK), they are very right wing, some of his immediate family are outright racists and pretty sure most vote for far right parties in their home country. When I met said friend it was at university, he is very left wing in his views from day one and it wasn't a recent "conversion", but doesn't talk about them with his family because it will just cause arguments.
Again it would be easy to paint him (if you didn't know) as "one of them".
Kimmel missed the mark with that one statement. The rest of the monologue was fine, it wasn't that funny, but Trump being Trump has stopped being funny ages ago.
You are really, really stretching here. He is 'one of them' for a number of reasons; if he walked into a bar, they would see 'one of them' and not 'one of the other'. He was raised as 'one of them'. He could fire guns like 'one of them'.
The right's attempts to disown him are f'ing hilarious. Even *if* - and it is a big conditional - he became a massive left-wing @sshat in the last few months or years, he was undoubtedly one of the right it terms of background and upbringing. Any violence may well have roots far back into that upbringing.
IMO, thats some pretty dodgy "profiling". If we were talking about say a black guy from the Projects, are we going to make such sweeping generalisations? Well you know he is definitely "one of them", they are all into drug dealing and shooting guns and alike.
Imagine Kimmel had claimed something along those lines.
I just don't judge people like that.
What b/s. You are judging him, on rather sparse information from (what can only be seen as) biased sources, and ignoring much more of what we do know about him and his background.
None of us know. The authorities don't seem to know. It might not even be a left / right right. I don't know how you are so sure.
I am literally no judging him. I have said from the start I have no idea, there are too many conflicting bits and pieces and they are all via social media.
Yet you are 'sure' enough to attack Kimmel over it. Get a grip.
I didn't "attack" Kimmel. I pointed out the one line that is causing the issue, and I thought it was unwise and untrue* statement (and the rest of what he said was absolutely fair game) and a minor apology would have done. I am hardly going all burn the witch, cancel him forever.
I was just at a parents' mixer for my daughter's schools, and you realise how incredibly hard it is for these companies.
Disney is facing pressure from the left, because people are cancelling their subscriptions, and pressure from the right, because advertising is being cancelled.
The current story running on the news networks is that Disney are trying to find a way for Kimmel to come back, but he's refusing to apolgise. And having watched the section in question, I must admit, why should he apoligise? It wasn't about Charlie Kirk, it was about Trump being a narcassist.
I don't really know how Disney (and other media companies) manage this. It's going to be very interesting.
He did made a false statement in the first part. Then he went for Trump (which is fair game). I think an apology he got the first bit wrong would have be fine and everybody moves on, but it sounds like he told Iger to do one and he was going to double down on it all. Which then puts Iger / Disney in a difficult position.
In the recent past they have stuck to their guns when they have binned people of, and in case of Gina Carano eventually had to pay out a lot of money.
What was the "false statement"? It all seemed perfectly reasonable to me. If Kimmel did make a "false statement" and deserves to be cancelled, can we cancel Trump every time he makes a "false statement"?
Kimmel - "the Maga gang is desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them"
Kimmel is clearly saying he believes it is a fact that the shooter was part of the MAGA clan. We don't know for certain, but it doesn't appear true. And I don't think it is a wise thing to be saying.
And as I say, I think, a quick apology about, well we don't actually know the motivations of the shooter at the moment in time, I shouldn't really have said that....end of story....back to Trump bashing which he is free to do (albeit the viewers don't seem very interested these days).
It's not true that the killer was MAGA.
On the other hand, he was a white kid from a Christian* middle class family.
* Assuming you believe Mormonism is a branch of Christianity
In other news, my son starting secondary school has been a little bit of an eye-opener on the way education has changed in the near-35 years since I left school.
The school gives every child an iPad (*). But as parents, we get web access to his due homework, and the grades for completed homework. His attendance, twice a day. His full timetable and teachers for each class, his behaviour, and any detentions. Even what he chose for dinner.
This seems massively more information, and much more immediate, than my parents got from my schools.
Whether it improves grades or not is a different matter...
(*) Which we pay for, obvs.
Is this standard across secondary schools? I had no idea. I'm sure it speeds up marking a lot and school admin. Instinctively it feels a bit off but guess when my kids are older I will adjust to navigate it.
It does show how much wealthier we have become (and perhaps also a bit of mission creep in terms of what is standard).
However, if everyone apologised for every time they say something that someone else can stretch the interpretation to take offence at, none of us would ever get anything done.
And if you think a politician's apology would have resolved this, I probably have a bridge to sell you.
The FCC chair has no problem with a host on Fox News suggesting killing homeless people
And that's how this seems likely to play out.
Not a blanket "close down all the lefties" edict, but an asymmetric punishing of transgressions that... erm... closes down of the lefties.
Having spent a huge amount of time in the US. White, religious, guns, is a huge proportion of the US. Its alien to us in Europe, but it is just a fact in many states in the US. That is normal life. People going to the supermarket with their guns is bonkers to me, but that is not abnormal to many Americans.
I was just at a parents' mixer for my daughter's schools, and you realise how incredibly hard it is for these companies.
Disney is facing pressure from the left, because people are cancelling their subscriptions, and pressure from the right, because advertising is being cancelled.
The current story running on the news networks is that Disney are trying to find a way for Kimmel to come back, but he's refusing to apolgise. And having watched the section in question, I must admit, why should he apoligise? It wasn't about Charlie Kirk, it was about Trump being a narcassist.
I don't really know how Disney (and other media companies) manage this. It's going to be very interesting.
In other news, my son starting secondary school has been a little bit of an eye-opener on the way education has changed in the near-35 years since I left school.
The school gives every child an iPad (*). But as parents, we get web access to his due homework, and the grades for completed homework. His attendance, twice a day. His full timetable and teachers for each class, his behaviour, and any detentions. Even what he chose for dinner.
This seems massively more information, and much more immediate, than my parents got from my schools.
Whether it improves grades or not is a different matter...
(*) Which we pay for, obvs.
Is this standard across secondary schools? I had no idea. I'm sure it speeds up marking a lot and school admin. Instinctively it feels a bit off but guess when my kids are older I will adjust to navigate it.
It does show how much wealthier we have become (and perhaps also a bit of mission creep in terms of what is standard).
I've no idea if it is 'standard', or even common. It is a very new school (they cannot accuse us of moving into the catchment area, as the school 'moved' into ours...). I quite like the information, especially in these early days when the kid is trying to get used to the new school. And especially when his timetable got destroyed in rain coming home after the first day (*), so I could just go online and print him out a new one.
However, if everyone apologised for every time they say something that someone else can stretch the interpretation to take offence at, none of us would ever get anything done.
And if you think a politician's apology would have resolved this, I probably have a bridge to sell you.
The FCC chair has no problem with a host on Fox News suggesting killing homeless people
And that's how this seems likely to play out.
Not a blanket "close down all the lefties" edict, but an asymmetric punishing of transgressions that... erm... closes down of the lefties.
Soon the only State approved comedian on TV will be Karoline Leavitt
I was just at a parents' mixer for my daughter's schools, and you realise how incredibly hard it is for these companies.
Disney is facing pressure from the left, because people are cancelling their subscriptions, and pressure from the right, because advertising is being cancelled.
The current story running on the news networks is that Disney are trying to find a way for Kimmel to come back, but he's refusing to apolgise. And having watched the section in question, I must admit, why should he apoligise? It wasn't about Charlie Kirk, it was about Trump being a narcassist.
I don't really know how Disney (and other media companies) manage this. It's going to be very interesting.
He did made a false statement in the first part. Then he went for Trump (which is fair game). I think an apology he got the first bit wrong would have be fine and everybody moves on, but it sounds like he told Iger to do one and he was going to double down on it all. Which then puts Iger / Disney in a difficult position.
In the recent past they have stuck to their guns when they have binned people of, and in case of Gina Carano eventually had to pay out a lot of money.
What was the "false statement"? It all seemed perfectly reasonable to me. If Kimmel did make a "false statement" and deserves to be cancelled, can we cancel Trump every time he makes a "false statement"?
Kimmel - "the Maga gang is desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them"
Kimmel is clearly saying he believes it is a fact that the shooter was part of the MAGA clan. We don't know for certain, but it doesn't appear true. And I don't think it is a wise thing to be saying.
And as I say, I think, a quick apology about, well we don't actually know the motivations of the shooter at the moment in time, I shouldn't really have said that....end of story....back to Trump bashing which he is free to do (albeit the viewers don't seem very interested these days).
I don't see an inconsistency in what Kimmel has said. He has chosen his words carefully. He doesn't actually confirm that Robinson is MAGA. Kimmel states "the MAGA gang is desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them". This is factually correct. Where has Kimmel claimed Robinson is MAGA? Now Kimmel may have disingenuously drawn you in to your false conclusion. However it is false nonetheless.
Ok, lets for arguments sack he is doing what you state. GIven what has gone on, I still think that is a very unwise thing to say. He is free to say it, but I think its unwise, it will draw a lot of people to "false conclusions". No need to even go there. And its not part of a "funny".
As I said down thread the easy off ramp is the classical political I am sorry if people were offended by that bit.
That is appeared to what was offered to him and instead he said screw you all, i am going home to write an even more hot take on things. To which Chief Winnie the Pooh appears to have said no honey for you. And then its all got rather out of hand.
However, if everyone apologised for every time they say something that someone else can stretch the interpretation to take offence at, none of us would ever get anything done.
And if you think a politician's apology would have resolved this, I probably have a bridge to sell you.
Sure, but this is a particularly sensitive issue. As for would it have resolve it, Disney / Bob Iger offered this as the out option. Yes MAGA would still be tw@ttering, but then it would make them look even more ridiculous and Kimmel more in the right. And if Trump then get actually cancel licences or whatever, well then that is proper dictator stuff.
Having spent a huge amount of time in the US. White, religious, guns, is a huge proportion of the US. Its alien to us in Europe, but it is just a fact in many states in the US. That is normal life. People going to the supermarket with their guns is bonkers to me, but that is not abnormal to many Americans.
I know. I lived there. And the people I know who have guns are Trump fans.
In other news, my son starting secondary school has been a little bit of an eye-opener on the way education has changed in the near-35 years since I left school.
The school gives every child an iPad (*). But as parents, we get web access to his due homework, and the grades for completed homework. His attendance, twice a day. His full timetable and teachers for each class, his behaviour, and any detentions. Even what he chose for dinner.
This seems massively more information, and much more immediate, than my parents got from my schools.
Whether it improves grades or not is a different matter...
(*) Which we pay for, obvs.
I appreciate that this is how the world is now, and Medical Students wander round with iPads much the same.
Surely an essential part of parenting is letting go, and letting kids have some private life, make their own mistakes, learn the consequences of not doing homework on time etc. It all looks open to way too much over parenting to me.
I was just at a parents' mixer for my daughter's schools, and you realise how incredibly hard it is for these companies.
Disney is facing pressure from the left, because people are cancelling their subscriptions, and pressure from the right, because advertising is being cancelled.
The current story running on the news networks is that Disney are trying to find a way for Kimmel to come back, but he's refusing to apolgise. And having watched the section in question, I must admit, why should he apoligise? It wasn't about Charlie Kirk, it was about Trump being a narcassist.
I don't really know how Disney (and other media companies) manage this. It's going to be very interesting.
He did made a false statement in the first part. Then he went for Trump (which is fair game). I think an apology he got the first bit wrong would have be fine and everybody moves on, but it sounds like he told Iger to do one and he was going to double down on it all. Which then puts Iger / Disney in a difficult position.
In the recent past they have stuck to their guns when they have binned people of, and in case of Gina Carano eventually had to pay out a lot of money.
What was the "false statement"? It all seemed perfectly reasonable to me. If Kimmel did make a "false statement" and deserves to be cancelled, can we cancel Trump every time he makes a "false statement"?
Kimmel - "the Maga gang is desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them"
Kimmel is clearly saying he believes it is a fact that the shooter was part of the MAGA clan. We don't know for certain, but it doesn't appear true. And I don't think it is a wise thing to be saying.
And as I say, I think, a quick apology about, well we don't actually know the motivations of the shooter at the moment in time, I shouldn't really have said that....end of story....back to Trump bashing which he is free to do (albeit the viewers don't seem very interested these days).
From what we know about Tyler Robinson, it is clear that he is "one of them". A small town boy from the reddest part of one of the reddest states. Gun culture, father formerly in law enforcement and a Mormon minister. Solidly white Christian MAGA Republicans. It seems that he had good relationships with his family, to the point of borrowing his grandfather's rifle.
Now it may well be that he was in a relationship with his flat mate, who may have some degree of gender confusion, but there is no known expression of any "radical left politics" on Social Media or the like so far. Tyler seems a fairly apolitical gamer.
Whatever motivated him to kill Kirk springs from solid MAGA culture, perhaps some form of rebellion against that stifling small town conformity, but MAGA roots nonetheless.
If Tyler really was a "radical leftist" then why did he stay in such a place? He and his flat mate could easily moved to the big city, even Salt Lake City has a vibrant political and LGBT+ culture, let alone other big cities, but they didn't.
I am sure more will come out in time, but it is clear that Tyler comes from a very MAGA background and indeed is "one of them" or at least was "one of them".
I deliberately haven't speculated. We don't just know. I think its unwise to pick up the bits and pieces, as it appears very complicated.
But you can't say just because of somebodies family background that is one of them. My extended family are all very left wing, I come from a part of the country that has basically always voted for Labour MPs, my partner is very left wing. So somebody doing a bit "google" of my life, might easily go, well he is clearly "one of them lefties". Then if they looked at my posting on here, they would be a bit confused.
So making a definite statement I think is unwise. I think it was unwise of Kimmel to do so. And an swift apology about confusion / misunderstanding would have been enough for everybody to move on.
But he didn’t make a definite statement about Tyler.
He said that *MAGA* is desperate to disassociate themselves from Tyler. He didn’t opine whether that was correct or not
In other news, my son starting secondary school has been a little bit of an eye-opener on the way education has changed in the near-35 years since I left school.
The school gives every child an iPad (*). But as parents, we get web access to his due homework, and the grades for completed homework. His attendance, twice a day. His full timetable and teachers for each class, his behaviour, and any detentions. Even what he chose for dinner.
This seems massively more information, and much more immediate, than my parents got from my schools.
Whether it improves grades or not is a different matter...
(*) Which we pay for, obvs.
I appreciate that this is how the world is now, and Medical Students wander round with iPads much the same.
Surely an essential part of parenting is letting go, and letting kids have some private life, make their own mistakes, learn the consequences of not doing homework on time etc. It all looks open to way too much over parenting to me.
I think it might enable more over-parenting, if parents are so inclined. I doubt I'll be going onto the portals every morning and afternoon to see if he's in school, for instance, but some may. And for the first few weeks I may check each weekend to see what homework needs doing. But if he manages to do it without me, I'll probably stop doing that. He needs to learn more independence and self-dependence as he grows older.
Yes, there may be negatives. But only if you use it in such a way. Otherwise, it may be useful information.
Lots of adverts at the moment from the Canadian tourist industry. Not so much for the US as it builds up to the holiday booking/planning season. A video for those thinking of going to the US who might look at bit 'foreign'.
In other news, my son starting secondary school has been a little bit of an eye-opener on the way education has changed in the near-35 years since I left school.
The school gives every child an iPad (*). But as parents, we get web access to his due homework, and the grades for completed homework. His attendance, twice a day. His full timetable and teachers for each class, his behaviour, and any detentions. Even what he chose for dinner.
This seems massively more information, and much more immediate, than my parents got from my schools.
Whether it improves grades or not is a different matter...
(*) Which we pay for, obvs.
I appreciate that this is how the world is now, and Medical Students wander round with iPads much the same.
Surely an essential part of parenting is letting go, and letting kids have some private life, make their own mistakes, learn the consequences of not doing homework on time etc. It all looks open to way too much over parenting to me.
I think it might enable more over-parenting, if parents are so inclined. I doubt I'll be going onto the portals every morning and afternoon to see if he's in school, for instance, but some may. And for the first few weeks I may check each weekend to see what homework needs doing. But if he manages to do it without me, I'll probably stop doing that. He needs to learn more independence and self-dependence as he grows older.
Yes, there may be negatives. But only if you use it in such a way. Otherwise, it may be useful information.
There is a growing body of evidence that "over-parenting" is part of the youth mental health crisis.
I am sure that parental neglect is an even bigger problem too. Getting the balance right of letting go, but being a safe loving haven is quite a challenge.
Having spent a huge amount of time in the US. White, religious, guns, is a huge proportion of the US. Its alien to us in Europe, but it is just a fact in many states in the US. That is normal life. People going to the supermarket with their guns is bonkers to me, but that is not abnormal to many Americans.
I know. I lived there. And the people I know who have guns are Trump fans.
Interestingly the Mormons aren't all super fans of Trump, despite still voting Republican. They are quite different in accepted customs e.g. the 10% given to charity every month, which Trumps "loaddddddss of money" sch-tick doesn't really align.
From the earliest days of his campaign, it was clear Donald Trump had a Mormon problem. During the campaign, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) had ambivalent feelings about him and his influence in the GOP. Now, Trump’s standing among Latter-day Saints—a once loyal Republican constituency—is deteriorating.
More than half (51 percent) of Latter-day Saints express negative views of the former president. They are also twice as likely to have a very unfavorable than a very favorable opinion of him.
Lots of adverts at the moment from the Canadian tourist industry. Not so much for the US as it builds up to the holiday booking/planning season. A video for those thinking of going to the US who might look at bit 'foreign'.
I was just at a parents' mixer for my daughter's schools, and you realise how incredibly hard it is for these companies.
Disney is facing pressure from the left, because people are cancelling their subscriptions, and pressure from the right, because advertising is being cancelled.
The current story running on the news networks is that Disney are trying to find a way for Kimmel to come back, but he's refusing to apolgise. And having watched the section in question, I must admit, why should he apoligise? It wasn't about Charlie Kirk, it was about Trump being a narcassist.
I don't really know how Disney (and other media companies) manage this. It's going to be very interesting.
He did made a false statement in the first part. Then he went for Trump (which is fair game). I think an apology he got the first bit wrong would have be fine and everybody moves on, but it sounds like he told Iger to do one and he was going to double down on it all. Which then puts Iger / Disney in a difficult position.
In the recent past they have stuck to their guns when they have binned people of, and in case of Gina Carano eventually had to pay out a lot of money.
What was the "false statement"? It all seemed perfectly reasonable to me. If Kimmel did make a "false statement" and deserves to be cancelled, can we cancel Trump every time he makes a "false statement"?
Kimmel - "the Maga gang is desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them"
Kimmel is clearly saying he believes it is a fact that the shooter was part of the MAGA clan. We don't know for certain, but it doesn't appear true. And I don't think it is a wise thing to be saying.
And as I say, I think, a quick apology about, well we don't actually know the motivations of the shooter at the moment in time, I shouldn't really have said that....end of story....back to Trump bashing which he is free to do (albeit the viewers don't seem very interested these days).
I don't see an inconsistency in what Kimmel has said. He has chosen his words carefully. He doesn't actually confirm that Robinson is MAGA. Kimmel states "the MAGA gang is desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them". This is factually correct. Where has Kimmel claimed Robinson is MAGA? Now Kimmel may have disingenuously drawn you in to your false conclusion. However it is false nonetheless.
Ok, lets for arguments sack he is doing what you state. GIven what has gone on, I still think that is a very unwise thing to say. He is free to say it, but I think its unwise, it will draw a lot of people to "false conclusions". No need to even go there. And its not part of a "funny".
As I said down thread the easy off ramp is the classical political I am sorry if people were offended by that bit.
That is appeared to what was offered to him and instead he said screw you all, i am going home to write an even more hot take on things. To which Chief Winnie the Pooh appears to have said no honey for you. And then its all got rather out of hand.
Everything he said was true and even if it hadn't been he said it in a country where freedom of speech is meant to be protected by the first ammendment. Now apparently it isn't if you say anything that offends the narcissist in chief. There has to be a line that Americans are willing to defend if they value their hard won freedoms. As the saying goes, if you tolerate this your children will be next
Having spent a huge amount of time in the US. White, religious, guns, is a huge proportion of the US. Its alien to us in Europe, but it is just a fact in many states in the US. That is normal life. People going to the supermarket with their guns is bonkers to me, but that is not abnormal to many Americans.
I know. I lived there. And the people I know who have guns are Trump fans.
Interestingly the Mormons aren't all super fans of Trump, despite still voting Republican. They are quite different in accepted customs e.g. the 10% given to charity every month, which Trumps "loaddddddss of money" sch-tick doesn't really align.
From the earliest days of his campaign, it was clear Donald Trump had a Mormon problem. During the campaign, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) had ambivalent feelings about him and his influence in the GOP. Now, Trump’s standing among Latter-day Saints—a once loyal Republican constituency—is deteriorating.
More than half (51 percent) of Latter-day Saints express negative views of the former president. They are also twice as likely to have a very unfavorable than a very favorable opinion of him.
I was just at a parents' mixer for my daughter's schools, and you realise how incredibly hard it is for these companies.
Disney is facing pressure from the left, because people are cancelling their subscriptions, and pressure from the right, because advertising is being cancelled.
The current story running on the news networks is that Disney are trying to find a way for Kimmel to come back, but he's refusing to apolgise. And having watched the section in question, I must admit, why should he apoligise? It wasn't about Charlie Kirk, it was about Trump being a narcassist.
I don't really know how Disney (and other media companies) manage this. It's going to be very interesting.
He did made a false statement in the first part. Then he went for Trump (which is fair game). I think an apology he got the first bit wrong would have be fine and everybody moves on, but it sounds like he told Iger to do one and he was going to double down on it all. Which then puts Iger / Disney in a difficult position.
In the recent past they have stuck to their guns when they have binned people of, and in case of Gina Carano eventually had to pay out a lot of money.
What was the "false statement"? It all seemed perfectly reasonable to me. If Kimmel did make a "false statement" and deserves to be cancelled, can we cancel Trump every time he makes a "false statement"?
Kimmel - "the Maga gang is desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them"
Kimmel is clearly saying he believes it is a fact that the shooter was part of the MAGA clan. We don't know for certain, but it doesn't appear true. And I don't think it is a wise thing to be saying.
And as I say, I think, a quick apology about, well we don't actually know the motivations of the shooter at the moment in time, I shouldn't really have said that....end of story....back to Trump bashing which he is free to do (albeit the viewers don't seem very interested these days).
I don't see an inconsistency in what Kimmel has said. He has chosen his words carefully. He doesn't actually confirm that Robinson is MAGA. Kimmel states "the MAGA gang is desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them". This is factually correct. Where has Kimmel claimed Robinson is MAGA? Now Kimmel may have disingenuously drawn you in to your false conclusion. However it is false nonetheless.
Ok, lets for arguments sack he is doing what you state. GIven what has gone on, I still think that is a very unwise thing to say. He is free to say it, but I think its unwise, it will draw a lot of people to "false conclusions". No need to even go there. And its not part of a "funny".
As I said down thread the easy off ramp is the classical political I am sorry if people were offended by that bit.
That is appeared to what was offered to him and instead he said screw you all, i am going home to write an even more hot take on things. To which Chief Winnie the Pooh appears to have said no honey for you. And then its all got rather out of hand.
Everything he said was true and even if it hadn't been he said it in a country where freedom of speech is meant to be protected by the first ammendment. Now apparently it isn't if you say anything that offends the narcissist in chief. There has to be a line that Americans are willing to defend if they value their hard won freedoms. As the saying goes, if you tolerate this your children will be next
Well yes I posted down thread about Trump comments with the mafia-esque wouldn't it be terrible if lose your licence are unacceptable.
The new EU Entry/Exit System (EES) begins on October 12, 2025, requiring non-EU travellers, including UK citizens, to provide fingerprints and a facial photo at Schengen borders.
Then in another 12-18 months, we have to get the EU equivalent of the US ESTA.
Having spent a huge amount of time in the US. White, religious, guns, is a huge proportion of the US. Its alien to us in Europe, but it is just a fact in many states in the US. That is normal life. People going to the supermarket with their guns is bonkers to me, but that is not abnormal to many Americans.
I know. I lived there. And the people I know who have guns are Trump fans.
Interestingly the Morons aren't all super fans of Trump, despite still voting Republican. They are quite different in accepted customs e.g. the 10% given to charity every month, which Trumps "loaddddddss of money" sch-tick doesn't really align.
From the earliest days of his campaign, it was clear Donald Trump had a Mormon problem. During the campaign, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) had ambivalent feelings about him and his influence in the GOP. Now, Trump’s standing among Latter-day Saints—a once loyal Republican constituency—is deteriorating.
More than half (51 percent) of Latter-day Saints express negative views of the former president. They are also twice as likely to have a very unfavorable than a very favorable opinion of him.
Speculative guessing, but I wonder if the difference between white evangelicals and Mormons is the structure of their churches.
In that sense, Mormons are more like Methodists, Episcopalians, Roman Catholics and so on in having fairly small churches with lots of human contact. That seems to provide inoculation against MAGA in a way that megachurches and telechurches don't.
Because, although I shouldn't look down on my brethren, it's blooming hard to reconcile the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of MAGA.
The new EU Entry/Exit System (EES) begins on October 12, 2025, requiring non-EU travellers, including UK citizens, to provide fingerprints and a facial photo at Schengen borders.
Then in another 12-18 months, we have to get the EU equivalent of the US ESTA.
Oh good. Well at least my prints will be staying off their database for the time being. I have a ferry over to France in a few hours. I will be sure to be on the lookout for small boats for Leon
Lots of adverts at the moment from the Canadian tourist industry. Not so much for the US as it builds up to the holiday booking/planning season. A video for those thinking of going to the US who might look at bit 'foreign'.
The new EU Entry/Exit System (EES) begins on October 12, 2025, requiring non-EU travellers, including UK citizens, to provide fingerprints and a facial photo at Schengen borders.
Then in another 12-18 months, we have to get the EU equivalent of the US ESTA.
Having spent a huge amount of time in the US. White, religious, guns, is a huge proportion of the US. Its alien to us in Europe, but it is just a fact in many states in the US. That is normal life. People going to the supermarket with their guns is bonkers to me, but that is not abnormal to many Americans.
I know. I lived there. And the people I know who have guns are Trump fans.
Interestingly the Mormons aren't all super fans of Trump, despite still voting Republican. They are quite different in accepted customs e.g. the 10% given to charity every month, which Trumps "loaddddddss of money" sch-tick doesn't really align.
From the earliest days of his campaign, it was clear Donald Trump had a Mormon problem. During the campaign, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) had ambivalent feelings about him and his influence in the GOP. Now, Trump’s standing among Latter-day Saints—a once loyal Republican constituency—is deteriorating.
More than half (51 percent) of Latter-day Saints express negative views of the former president. They are also twice as likely to have a very unfavorable than a very favorable opinion of him.
Yes, this aligns with Bernie Sanders being popular in Utah.
They're quite an idiosyncratic state.
I have been a number of times and spent time in normie-land i.e. not Moab or downtown Salt Lake City. I found it quite a strange place that was very different to a lot of the US.
The stat I remember (I don't know if it is still true) SLC, some of the highest academic achievement levels in the whole of the US, one of the highest suicide rates.
Having spent a huge amount of time in the US. White, religious, guns, is a huge proportion of the US. Its alien to us in Europe, but it is just a fact in many states in the US. That is normal life. People going to the supermarket with their guns is bonkers to me, but that is not abnormal to many Americans.
I know. I lived there. And the people I know who have guns are Trump fans.
Interestingly the Morons aren't all super fans of Trump, despite still voting Republican. They are quite different in accepted customs e.g. the 10% given to charity every month, which Trumps "loaddddddss of money" sch-tick doesn't really align.
From the earliest days of his campaign, it was clear Donald Trump had a Mormon problem. During the campaign, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) had ambivalent feelings about him and his influence in the GOP. Now, Trump’s standing among Latter-day Saints—a once loyal Republican constituency—is deteriorating.
More than half (51 percent) of Latter-day Saints express negative views of the former president. They are also twice as likely to have a very unfavorable than a very favorable opinion of him.
Yes, I was in Utah earlier this year for a research meeting. I quite liked SLC, a very walkable and safe city compared to most in the USA. The Temple is having major work done, so lots of scaffolding, but fascinating to chat to the LDS greeters wandering around their quarter. Mormonism is very hierarchical and in terms of organisational structure is much more like orthodox denominations such as Episcopelians, Lutheran or Catholicism, rather than the freer Evangelical Pentacostalist style more common in the USA. So less enamoured of MAGAism and Trump, but still very conservative.
Curiously one thing I found out from one of the young LDS missionaries explaining things is that Tonga is the most Mormon country, about 70% apparently.
To me the essence of religion is not in theology or structure, but rather in how the religion influences how you live your life. Mormons seems to do that very well on the whole, they are simply nice people. A tree is known by its fruit.
Having spent a huge amount of time in the US. White, religious, guns, is a huge proportion of the US. Its alien to us in Europe, but it is just a fact in many states in the US. That is normal life. People going to the supermarket with their guns is bonkers to me, but that is not abnormal to many Americans.
I know. I lived there. And the people I know who have guns are Trump fans.
Interestingly the Morons aren't all super fans of Trump, despite still voting Republican. They are quite different in accepted customs e.g. the 10% given to charity every month, which Trumps "loaddddddss of money" sch-tick doesn't really align.
From the earliest days of his campaign, it was clear Donald Trump had a Mormon problem. During the campaign, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) had ambivalent feelings about him and his influence in the GOP. Now, Trump’s standing among Latter-day Saints—a once loyal Republican constituency—is deteriorating.
More than half (51 percent) of Latter-day Saints express negative views of the former president. They are also twice as likely to have a very unfavorable than a very favorable opinion of him.
Speculative guessing, but I wonder if the difference between white evangelicals and Mormons is the structure of their churches.
In that sense, Mormons are more like Methodists, Episcopalians, Roman Catholics and so on in having fairly small churches with lots of human contact. That seems to provide inoculation against MAGA in a way that megachurches and telechurches don't.
Because, although I shouldn't look down on my brethren, it's blooming hard to reconcile the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of MAGA.
I don't know. The teachings / practices followed by the Mormons is quite different. The polygamy has gone, but lots of other "quirks".
I was just at a parents' mixer for my daughter's schools, and you realise how incredibly hard it is for these companies.
Disney is facing pressure from the left, because people are cancelling their subscriptions, and pressure from the right, because advertising is being cancelled.
The current story running on the news networks is that Disney are trying to find a way for Kimmel to come back, but he's refusing to apolgise. And having watched the section in question, I must admit, why should he apoligise? It wasn't about Charlie Kirk, it was about Trump being a narcassist.
I don't really know how Disney (and other media companies) manage this. It's going to be very interesting.
He did made a false statement in the first part. Then he went for Trump (which is fair game). I think an apology he got the first bit wrong would have be fine and everybody moves on, but it sounds like he told Iger to do one and he was going to double down on it all. Which then puts Iger / Disney in a difficult position.
In the recent past they have stuck to their guns when they have binned people of, and in case of Gina Carano eventually had to pay out a lot of money.
What was the "false statement"? It all seemed perfectly reasonable to me. If Kimmel did make a "false statement" and deserves to be cancelled, can we cancel Trump every time he makes a "false statement"?
Kimmel - "the Maga gang is desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them"
Kimmel is clearly saying he believes it is a fact that the shooter was part of the MAGA clan. We don't know for certain, but it doesn't appear true. And I don't think it is a wise thing to be saying.
And as I say, I think, a quick apology about, well we don't actually know the motivations of the shooter at the moment in time, I shouldn't really have said that....end of story....back to Trump bashing which he is free to do (albeit the viewers don't seem very interested these days).
I don't see an inconsistency in what Kimmel has said. He has chosen his words carefully. He doesn't actually confirm that Robinson is MAGA. Kimmel states "the MAGA gang is desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them". This is factually correct. Where has Kimmel claimed Robinson is MAGA? Now Kimmel may have disingenuously drawn you in to your false conclusion. However it is false nonetheless.
Ok, lets for arguments sack he is doing what you state. GIven what has gone on, I still think that is a very unwise thing to say. He is free to say it, but I think its unwise, it will draw a lot of people to "false conclusions". No need to even go there. And its not part of a "funny".
As I said down thread the easy off ramp is the classical political I am sorry if people were offended by that bit.
That is appeared to what was offered to him and instead he said screw you all, i am going home to write an even more hot take on things. To which Chief Winnie the Pooh appears to have said no honey for you. And then its all got rather out of hand.
Let us assume you are right and we (not unusual in my case) are wrong.
That being so, Kimmel has been cancelled for applying his First Amendment right. That of itself is wrong.
Imagine if you were sanctioned by society every time you posted or reposted anti - Starmer material on here.
Having spent a huge amount of time in the US. White, religious, guns, is a huge proportion of the US. Its alien to us in Europe, but it is just a fact in many states in the US. That is normal life. People going to the supermarket with their guns is bonkers to me, but that is not abnormal to many Americans.
I know. I lived there. And the people I know who have guns are Trump fans.
Interestingly the Mormons aren't all super fans of Trump, despite still voting Republican. They are quite different in accepted customs e.g. the 10% given to charity every month, which Trumps "loaddddddss of money" sch-tick doesn't really align.
From the earliest days of his campaign, it was clear Donald Trump had a Mormon problem. During the campaign, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) had ambivalent feelings about him and his influence in the GOP. Now, Trump’s standing among Latter-day Saints—a once loyal Republican constituency—is deteriorating.
More than half (51 percent) of Latter-day Saints express negative views of the former president. They are also twice as likely to have a very unfavorable than a very favorable opinion of him.
Yes, this aligns with Bernie Sanders being popular in Utah.
They're quite an idiosyncratic state.
They also have both conservative and radical strands.
Would I be about right to define Utah as more likely to be Reaganite or George Bush Mk 1? Self-reliance, serious about their views, family and children, small state, and patriotism not nationalism.
That is, in the same bucket as traditionist small-c conservative evangelicals, despite not being evangelicals as such?
As opposed to the uncritical Maga fruit loops who support Trump.
I was just at a parents' mixer for my daughter's schools, and you realise how incredibly hard it is for these companies.
Disney is facing pressure from the left, because people are cancelling their subscriptions, and pressure from the right, because advertising is being cancelled.
The current story running on the news networks is that Disney are trying to find a way for Kimmel to come back, but he's refusing to apolgise. And having watched the section in question, I must admit, why should he apoligise? It wasn't about Charlie Kirk, it was about Trump being a narcassist.
I don't really know how Disney (and other media companies) manage this. It's going to be very interesting.
He did made a false statement in the first part. Then he went for Trump (which is fair game). I think an apology he got the first bit wrong would have be fine and everybody moves on, but it sounds like he told Iger to do one and he was going to double down on it all. Which then puts Iger / Disney in a difficult position.
In the recent past they have stuck to their guns when they have binned people of, and in case of Gina Carano eventually had to pay out a lot of money.
What was the "false statement"? It all seemed perfectly reasonable to me. If Kimmel did make a "false statement" and deserves to be cancelled, can we cancel Trump every time he makes a "false statement"?
Kimmel - "the Maga gang is desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them"
Kimmel is clearly saying he believes it is a fact that the shooter was part of the MAGA clan. We don't know for certain, but it doesn't appear true. And I don't think it is a wise thing to be saying.
And as I say, I think, a quick apology about, well we don't actually know the motivations of the shooter at the moment in time, I shouldn't really have said that....end of story....back to Trump bashing which he is free to do (albeit the viewers don't seem very interested these days).
I don't see an inconsistency in what Kimmel has said. He has chosen his words carefully. He doesn't actually confirm that Robinson is MAGA. Kimmel states "the MAGA gang is desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them". This is factually correct. Where has Kimmel claimed Robinson is MAGA? Now Kimmel may have disingenuously drawn you in to your false conclusion. However it is false nonetheless.
Ok, lets for arguments sack he is doing what you state. GIven what has gone on, I still think that is a very unwise thing to say. He is free to say it, but I think its unwise, it will draw a lot of people to "false conclusions". No need to even go there. And its not part of a "funny".
As I said down thread the easy off ramp is the classical political I am sorry if people were offended by that bit.
That is appeared to what was offered to him and instead he said screw you all, i am going home to write an even more hot take on things. To which Chief Winnie the Pooh appears to have said no honey for you. And then its all got rather out of hand.
Let us assume you are right and we (not unusual in my case) are wrong.
That being so, Kimmel has been cancelled for applying his First Amendment right. That of itself is wrong.
Imagine if you were sanctioned by society every time you posted or reposted anti - Starmer material on here.
I have certainly no advocated for him getting "cancelled", and the majority of the monologue was attacking Trump for his tone deaf reaction, which nobody should be complaining about in any way.
Trump comments about tv companies losing licences is abhorrent.
I was just at a parents' mixer for my daughter's schools, and you realise how incredibly hard it is for these companies.
Disney is facing pressure from the left, because people are cancelling their subscriptions, and pressure from the right, because advertising is being cancelled.
The current story running on the news networks is that Disney are trying to find a way for Kimmel to come back, but he's refusing to apolgise. And having watched the section in question, I must admit, why should he apoligise? It wasn't about Charlie Kirk, it was about Trump being a narcassist.
I don't really know how Disney (and other media companies) manage this. It's going to be very interesting.
He did made a false statement in the first part. Then he went for Trump (which is fair game). I think an apology he got the first bit wrong would have be fine and everybody moves on, but it sounds like he told Iger to do one and he was going to double down on it all. Which then puts Iger / Disney in a difficult position.
In the recent past they have stuck to their guns when they have binned people of, and in case of Gina Carano eventually had to pay out a lot of money.
What was the "false statement"? It all seemed perfectly reasonable to me. If Kimmel did make a "false statement" and deserves to be cancelled, can we cancel Trump every time he makes a "false statement"?
Kimmel - "the Maga gang is desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them"
Kimmel is clearly saying he believes it is a fact that the shooter was part of the MAGA clan. We don't know for certain, but it doesn't appear true. And I don't think it is a wise thing to be saying.
And as I say, I think, a quick apology about, well we don't actually know the motivations of the shooter at the moment in time, I shouldn't really have said that....end of story....back to Trump bashing which he is free to do (albeit the viewers don't seem very interested these days).
I don't see an inconsistency in what Kimmel has said. He has chosen his words carefully. He doesn't actually confirm that Robinson is MAGA. Kimmel states "the MAGA gang is desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them". This is factually correct. Where has Kimmel claimed Robinson is MAGA? Now Kimmel may have disingenuously drawn you in to your false conclusion. However it is false nonetheless.
Ok, lets for arguments sack he is doing what you state. GIven what has gone on, I still think that is a very unwise thing to say. He is free to say it, but I think its unwise, it will draw a lot of people to "false conclusions". No need to even go there. And its not part of a "funny".
As I said down thread the easy off ramp is the classical political I am sorry if people were offended by that bit.
That is appeared to what was offered to him and instead he said screw you all, i am going home to write an even more hot take on things. To which Chief Winnie the Pooh appears to have said no honey for you. And then its all got rather out of hand.
Let us assume you are right and we (not unusual in my case) are wrong.
That being so, Kimmel has been cancelled for applying his First Amendment right. That of itself is wrong.
Imagine if you were sanctioned by society every time you posted or reposted anti - Starmer material on here.
There'd only be about 3 of us left.
(I did not say that I am one of three, before anyone jumps in Bovver-Boots first.)
One of the problems with the Late Night hosts like Kimmel is they aren't really seen as comedians anymore. The monologues are highly political every night and always one sided. So its hard to say just jokes and that "we" have a go at everybody.
So its starting from a place where for lots of people, he is their team or the opponents teams. And of course been very quick to always dunk on everybody else who has got shit canned from the other team.
I would point out that not all the late night hosts are reliably left wing. Bill Maher is certainly not. And Jon Stewart has done a reasonable job of not being too partisan.
I would also point out that while the left has their late night comedians, the right has Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham.
It seems like left wing audiences like to mock, while right wing ones like to be outraged.
Bill Maher and Jon Stewart are by far the best of them, they’re both of the left but prepared to go for everyone when necessary. The comparator on the other side would be Greg Gutfeld on Fox.
Most importantly, they haven’t lost sight of the need to make things funny. You can get away with a very political commentary if it’s full of good jokes and makes people laugh.
Notably both getting on a bit and so perhaps a little out of step with modern preference for message over joke?
Having spent a huge amount of time in the US. White, religious, guns, is a huge proportion of the US. Its alien to us in Europe, but it is just a fact in many states in the US. That is normal life. People going to the supermarket with their guns is bonkers to me, but that is not abnormal to many Americans.
I know. I lived there. And the people I know who have guns are Trump fans.
Interestingly the Mormons aren't all super fans of Trump, despite still voting Republican. They are quite different in accepted customs e.g. the 10% given to charity every month, which Trumps "loaddddddss of money" sch-tick doesn't really align.
From the earliest days of his campaign, it was clear Donald Trump had a Mormon problem. During the campaign, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) had ambivalent feelings about him and his influence in the GOP. Now, Trump’s standing among Latter-day Saints—a once loyal Republican constituency—is deteriorating.
More than half (51 percent) of Latter-day Saints express negative views of the former president. They are also twice as likely to have a very unfavorable than a very favorable opinion of him.
Yes, this aligns with Bernie Sanders being popular in Utah.
They're quite an idiosyncratic state.
I have been a number of times and spent time in normie-land i.e. not Moab or downtown Salt Lake City. I found it quite a strange place that was very different to a lot of the US.
The stat I remember (I don't know if it is still true) SLC, some of the highest academic achievement levels in the whole of the US, one of the highest suicide rates.
I think that was my 4th trip to Utah, previously mostly in the National parks in the South.
The US Airforce museum at Clark Field about 45 minutes north of SLC was a highlight on an afternoon off. Loads of old planes with a particularly fine collection of US cold war jets. It's free and run by volunteers who seem to mostly be USAF vets, and full of stories. One lovely old boy reminiscing over his time flying B52s over Vietnam, as a counterpoint to what I saw inland of Hue at the receiving end of those raids.
The new EU Entry/Exit System (EES) begins on October 12, 2025, requiring non-EU travellers, including UK citizens, to provide fingerprints and a facial photo at Schengen borders.
Then in another 12-18 months, we have to get the EU equivalent of the US ESTA.
One of the problems with the Late Night hosts like Kimmel is they aren't really seen as comedians anymore. The monologues are highly political every night and always one sided. So its hard to say just jokes and that "we" have a go at everybody.
So its starting from a place where for lots of people, he is their team or the opponents teams. And of course been very quick to always dunk on everybody else who has got shit canned from the other team.
I would point out that not all the late night hosts are reliably left wing. Bill Maher is certainly not. And Jon Stewart has done a reasonable job of not being too partisan.
I would also point out that while the left has their late night comedians, the right has Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham.
It seems like left wing audiences like to mock, while right wing ones like to be outraged.
Bill Maher and Jon Stewart are by far the best of them, they’re both of the left but prepared to go for everyone when necessary. The comparator on the other side would be Greg Gutfeld on Fox.
Most importantly, they haven’t lost sight of the need to make things funny. You can get away with a very political commentary if it’s full of good jokes and makes people laugh.
Notably both getting on a bit and so perhaps a little out of step with modern preference for message over joke?
Freedom of Speech but conditional on the US Federal Government finding it funny is not a way to run a democracy, in my very firm opinion.
He had described the messages between the killer and his boyfriend after the murder as “very touching”.
This happened before the Jimmy Kimmel story, so one might assume that ABC/Disney management were already on alert about the way they were covering the story.
Having spent a huge amount of time in the US. White, religious, guns, is a huge proportion of the US. Its alien to us in Europe, but it is just a fact in many states in the US. That is normal life. People going to the supermarket with their guns is bonkers to me, but that is not abnormal to many Americans.
I know. I lived there. And the people I know who have guns are Trump fans.
Interestingly the Morons aren't all super fans of Trump, despite still voting Republican. They are quite different in accepted customs e.g. the 10% given to charity every month, which Trumps "loaddddddss of money" sch-tick doesn't really align.
From the earliest days of his campaign, it was clear Donald Trump had a Mormon problem. During the campaign, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) had ambivalent feelings about him and his influence in the GOP. Now, Trump’s standing among Latter-day Saints—a once loyal Republican constituency—is deteriorating.
More than half (51 percent) of Latter-day Saints express negative views of the former president. They are also twice as likely to have a very unfavorable than a very favorable opinion of him.
Yes, I was in Utah earlier this year for a research meeting. I quite liked SLC, a very walkable and safe city compared to most in the USA. The Temple is having major work done, so lots of scaffolding, but fascinating to chat to the LDS greeters wandering around their quarter. Mormonism is very hierarchical and in terms of organisational structure is much more like orthodox denominations such as Episcopelians, Lutheran or Catholicism, rather than the freer Evangelical Pentacostalist style more common in the USA. So less enamoured of MAGAism and Trump, but still very conservative.
Curiously one thing I found out from one of the young LDS missionaries explaining things is that Tonga is the most Mormon country, about 70% apparently.
To me the essence of religion is not in theology or structure, but rather in how the religion influences how you live your life. Mormons seems to do that very well on the whole, they are simply nice people. A tree is known by its fruit.
Though the structure of the organisation surely drives the effectiveness of a church or community group as a machine for making good people.
So it's not so much that Christianity, Islam or secularism are good or bad, but that there are ways of doing each that tend better or worse. I'm wondering what the commonalities are.
In other news, my son starting secondary school has been a little bit of an eye-opener on the way education has changed in the near-35 years since I left school.
The school gives every child an iPad (*). But as parents, we get web access to his due homework, and the grades for completed homework. His attendance, twice a day. His full timetable and teachers for each class, his behaviour, and any detentions. Even what he chose for dinner.
This seems massively more information, and much more immediate, than my parents got from my schools.
Whether it improves grades or not is a different matter...
(*) Which we pay for, obvs.
I appreciate that this is how the world is now, and Medical Students wander round with iPads much the same.
Surely an essential part of parenting is letting go, and letting kids have some private life, make their own mistakes, learn the consequences of not doing homework on time etc. It all looks open to way too much over parenting to me.
I think it might enable more over-parenting, if parents are so inclined. I doubt I'll be going onto the portals every morning and afternoon to see if he's in school, for instance, but some may. And for the first few weeks I may check each weekend to see what homework needs doing. But if he manages to do it without me, I'll probably stop doing that. He needs to learn more independence and self-dependence as he grows older.
Yes, there may be negatives. But only if you use it in such a way. Otherwise, it may be useful information.
There is a growing body of evidence that "over-parenting" is part of the youth mental health crisis.
I am sure that parental neglect is an even bigger problem too. Getting the balance right of letting go, but being a safe loving haven is quite a challenge.
Yes, it reminds a bit of the somewhat romanticised view of past childhood where kids might be out for hours at 8 years old with parents no idea where they were, vs parents terrified of a teenager going alone to the local shop or something. Has to beca balance surely.
Independence was not much of a choice for many parents previously, of course. My poor mum certainly couldn't keep an eye on 4 kids by herself whilst working full time. Had some upsides and some downsides.
In other news, my son starting secondary school has been a little bit of an eye-opener on the way education has changed in the near-35 years since I left school.
The school gives every child an iPad (*). But as parents, we get web access to his due homework, and the grades for completed homework. His attendance, twice a day. His full timetable and teachers for each class, his behaviour, and any detentions. Even what he chose for dinner.
This seems massively more information, and much more immediate, than my parents got from my schools.
Whether it improves grades or not is a different matter...
(*) Which we pay for, obvs.
I appreciate that this is how the world is now, and Medical Students wander round with iPads much the same.
Surely an essential part of parenting is letting go, and letting kids have some private life, make their own mistakes, learn the consequences of not doing homework on time etc. It all looks open to way too much over parenting to me.
I think it might enable more over-parenting, if parents are so inclined. I doubt I'll be going onto the portals every morning and afternoon to see if he's in school, for instance, but some may. And for the first few weeks I may check each weekend to see what homework needs doing. But if he manages to do it without me, I'll probably stop doing that. He needs to learn more independence and self-dependence as he grows older.
Yes, there may be negatives. But only if you use it in such a way. Otherwise, it may be useful information.
There is a growing body of evidence that "over-parenting" is part of the youth mental health crisis.
I am sure that parental neglect is an even bigger problem too. Getting the balance right of letting go, but being a safe loving haven is quite a challenge.
Yes, it reminds a bit of the somewhat romanticised view of past childhood where kids might be out for hours at 8 years old with parents no idea where they were, vs parents terrified of a teenager going alone to the local shop or something. Has to beca balance surely.
Independence was not much of a choice for many parents previously, of course. My poor mum certainly couldn't keep an eye on 4 kids by herself whilst working full time. Had some upsides and some downsides.
IMV it depends on the kid. Some kids are very self-reliant early, and other kids need more help. And it can vary not from kid to kid, but also within a kid: one kid may be very able to sort out homework and schoolwork, but also be able to utterly lose track of time when out alone.
Comments
I think the state of play is as much a function CNN failure as Fox success. MSNBC was a minor player then rode the first Trump outrage cycle, but people eventually got bored. CNN at one point was really big and fairly middle of the road. But gone more and more liberal and employed the left leaning wallies to match up against Fox News lot e.g. Don Lemon.
Kimmel is clearly saying he believes it is a fact that the shooter was part of the MAGA clan. We don't know for certain, but it doesn't appear true. And I don't think it is a wise thing to be saying.
And as I say, I think, a quick apology about, well we don't actually know the motivations of the shooter at the moment in time, I shouldn't really have said that....end of story....back to Trump bashing which he is free to do (albeit the viewers don't seem very interested these days).
On the other hand, he was a white kid from a Christian* middle class family.
* Assuming you believe Mormonism is a branch of Christianity
It appears Disney gave him an out and he instead decided to do the opposite. Which then leaves everybody in a very tricky spot. But now its blowing up into something way out of proportion.
This isn't Bud Light where calling all your customers knuckle dragging morons, well its not surprising they get pissed and there will be a massive reaction.
Now it may well be that he was in a relationship with his flat mate, who may have some degree of gender confusion, but there is no known expression of any "radical left politics" on Social Media or the like so far. Tyler seems a fairly apolitical gamer.
Whatever motivated him to kill Kirk springs from solid MAGA culture, perhaps some form of rebellion against that stifling small town conformity, but MAGA roots nonetheless.
If Tyler really was a "radical leftist" then why did he stay in such a place? He and his flat mate could easily moved to the big city, even Salt Lake City has a vibrant political and LGBT+ culture, let alone other big cities, but they didn't.
I am sure more will come out in time, but it is clear that Tyler comes from a very MAGA background and indeed is "one of them" or at least was "one of them". There's a bit of the "no true Scotsman" circular fallacy to this. No true MAGA American would shoot another MAGA American, but he did.
But you can't say just because of somebodies family background that is one of them. My extended family are all very left wing, I come from a part of the country that has basically always voted for Labour MPs, my partner is very left wing. So somebody doing a bit "google" of my life, might easily go, well he is clearly "one of them lefties". Then if they looked at my posting on here, they would be a bit confused.
So making a definite statement I think is unwise. I think it was unwise of Kimmel to do so. And an swift apology about confusion / misunderstanding would have been enough for everybody to move on.
Whilst I agree with the general sentiment of your post, I'd just point out that the MAGAisation of the judiciary, FBI and this case means that we will only get *very* biased information with varying levels of 'truth'.
Sure, sometimes people reject their family backgrounds, but there isn't much evidence of that so far.
The only really odd thing is the phrasing of his chats on Discord, which read more 1925 than 2025.
But as I keep on having to say: it might be that he had multiple reasons to commit this act, and they might even be unclear to him.
Again it would be easy to paint him (if you didn't know) as "one of them".
Kimmel missed the mark with that one statement. The rest of the monologue was fine, it wasn't that funny, but Trump being Trump has stopped being funny ages ago.
As I said down thread the easy off ramp is the classical political I am sorry if people were offended by that bit.
That is appeared to what was offered to him and instead he said screw you all, i am going home to write an even more hot take on things. To which Chief Winnie the Pooh appears to have said no honey for you. And then its all got rather out of hand.
The right's attempts to disown him are f'ing hilarious. Even *if* - and it is a big conditional - he became a massive left-wing @sshat in the last few months or years, he was undoubtedly one of the right it terms of background and upbringing. Any violence may well have roots far back into that upbringing.
Imagine Kimmel had claimed something along those lines.
I just don't judge people like that.
It's a bit like saying that not having a flag of St George visible in the background on your webcam shows that you hate England.
The school gives every child an iPad (*). But as parents, we get web access to his due homework, and the grades for completed homework. His attendance, twice a day. His full timetable and teachers for each class, his behaviour, and any detentions. Even what he chose for dinner.
This seems massively more information, and much more immediate, than my parents got from my schools.
Whether it improves grades or not is a different matter...
(*) Which we pay for, obvs.
I have been to Utah a number of times, it doesn't in general feel the same as those deep south states or even neighbouring Idaho, that has for instance had a white supremacist / militia issues.
There is way too many unknowns IMO to be throwing shade around.
Most importantly, they haven’t lost sight of the need to make things funny. You can get away with a very political commentary if it’s full of good jokes and makes people laugh.
I am literally not judging him. I have said from the start I have no idea, there are too many conflicting bits and pieces and they are all via social media. I have stayed clear from linking to stuff. That is why I think its foolish to start pinning blame.
This is now way off topic.
That's the MAGA ideal
And if you think a politician's apology would have resolved this, I probably have a bridge to sell you.
* we are debating that. which is fine.
Instinctively it feels a bit off but guess when my kids are older I will adjust to navigate it.
It does show how much wealthier we have become (and perhaps also a bit of mission creep in terms of what is standard).
https://x.com/CalltoActivism/status/1968889980178112866
Not a blanket "close down all the lefties" edict, but an asymmetric punishing of transgressions that... erm... closes down of the lefties.
(*) He didn't zip up his bag. Kids, eh?
Surely an essential part of parenting is letting go, and letting kids have some private life, make their own mistakes, learn the consequences of not doing homework on time etc. It all looks open to way too much over parenting to me.
He said that *MAGA* is desperate to disassociate themselves from Tyler. He didn’t opine whether that was correct or not
Yes, there may be negatives. But only if you use it in such a way. Otherwise, it may be useful information.
https://x.com/i/status/1932152068204019996
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9811893/#:~:text=For example, an overparenting parent,on behalf of their child.
I am sure that parental neglect is an even bigger problem too. Getting the balance right of letting go, but being a safe loving haven is quite a challenge.
From the earliest days of his campaign, it was clear Donald Trump had a Mormon problem. During the campaign, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) had ambivalent feelings about him and his influence in the GOP. Now, Trump’s standing among Latter-day Saints—a once loyal Republican constituency—is deteriorating.
More than half (51 percent) of Latter-day Saints express negative views of the former president. They are also twice as likely to have a very unfavorable than a very favorable opinion of him.
https://www.americansurveycenter.org/newsletter/trumps-problem-with-mormon-voters-is-getting-worse/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
I fear I'm wrong.
Yes, this aligns with Bernie Sanders being popular in Utah.
They're quite an idiosyncratic state.
They also have both conservative and radical strands.
Then in another 12-18 months, we have to get the EU equivalent of the US ESTA.
In that sense, Mormons are more like Methodists, Episcopalians, Roman Catholics and so on in having fairly small churches with lots of human contact. That seems to provide inoculation against MAGA in a way that megachurches and telechurches don't.
Because, although I shouldn't look down on my brethren, it's blooming hard to reconcile the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of MAGA.
The stat I remember (I don't know if it is still true) SLC, some of the highest academic achievement levels in the whole of the US, one of the highest suicide rates.
Yes, I was in Utah earlier this year for a research meeting. I quite liked SLC, a very walkable and safe city compared to most in the USA. The Temple is having major work done, so lots of scaffolding, but fascinating to chat to the LDS greeters wandering around their quarter. Mormonism is very hierarchical and in terms of organisational structure is much more like orthodox denominations such as Episcopelians, Lutheran or Catholicism, rather than the freer Evangelical Pentacostalist style more common in the USA. So less enamoured of MAGAism and Trump, but still very conservative.
Curiously one thing I found out from one of the young LDS missionaries explaining things is that Tonga is the most Mormon country, about 70% apparently.
To me the essence of religion is not in theology or structure, but rather in how the religion influences how you live your life. Mormons seems to do that very well on the whole, they are simply nice people. A tree is known by its fruit.
That being so, Kimmel has been cancelled for applying his First Amendment right. That of itself is wrong.
Imagine if you were sanctioned by society every time you posted or reposted anti - Starmer material on here.
That is, in the same bucket as traditionist small-c conservative evangelicals, despite not being evangelicals as such?
As opposed to the uncritical Maga fruit loops who support Trump.
Trump comments about tv companies losing licences is abhorrent.
(I did not say that I am one of three, before anyone jumps in Bovver-Boots first.)
The US Airforce museum at Clark Field about 45 minutes north of SLC was a highlight on an afternoon off. Loads of old planes with a particularly fine collection of US cold war jets. It's free and run by volunteers who seem to mostly be USAF vets, and full of stories. One lovely old boy reminiscing over his time flying B52s over Vietnam, as a counterpoint to what I saw inland of Hue at the receiving end of those raids.
https://x.com/foxnews/status/1968285499417633171
He had described the messages between the killer and his boyfriend after the murder as “very touching”.
This happened before the Jimmy Kimmel story, so one might assume that ABC/Disney management were already on alert about the way they were covering the story.
NEW THREAD
So it's not so much that Christianity, Islam or secularism are good or bad, but that there are ways of doing each that tend better or worse. I'm wondering what the commonalities are.
Independence was not much of a choice for many parents previously, of course. My poor mum certainly couldn't keep an eye on 4 kids by herself whilst working full time. Had some upsides and some downsides.