Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

After getting Jimmy Kimmel suspended, FCC chair threatens ABC's The View

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 266 posts

Re: After getting Jimmy Kimmel suspended, FCC chair threatens ABC's The View

#181

Post by atmavatar »

taurath wrote: post #172
kanbara wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how can you say you only want cooperation when the viewpoints you and your brethren share are dehumanising, against a peaceful world, against caring for the environment, against minorities, against queer folk, and against international cooperation? we arent talking about “how many immigrants should we allow”, we’re talking about “trans people shouldnt exist”, “christianity is the true religion”, “deport all legal imm…

The person you’re responding to may not believe those things, and may not want those things or think it’s possible or reasonable. Let them speak about it at least before assuming that group affiliation means those things. FWIW I believe dehumanization is a horrendous thing, especially when aimed at relatively powerless minorities.

The people currently in power do believe and act on those things. Claiming they aren't the bad guys (and especially voting for them) demonstrates tacit acceptance of those beliefs and policies whether you like it or not. You don't get to support people who do bad things and claim you don't agree with the bad things.

Re: After getting Jimmy Kimmel suspended, FCC chair threatens ABC's The View

#182

Post by 0x68cdbcd0 »

taurath wrote: post #168
0x68cdbcd0 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Thanks, I genuinely appreciate the perspective. Do you find that perspective is primarily gotten from real life conversations, or from discourse online/social media/political commentators? I often fantasize about being able to just converse openly and be able to mutually share experiences. I was raised very conservative and speak the language and know the values. I don't hold those beliefs anymore because of experien…

> Do you find that perspective is primarily gotten from real life conversations, or from discourse online/social media/political commentators?

Both. I worked at a company that leaned right, and there was a guy I worked with that took every opportunity to interject with his left/liberal opinion. I think people found it annoying sometimes, but we had some good discussions every once in a while. His career didn't suffer and we still keep in touch. Other companies have either been apolitical or left-leaning, and I've never observed the opposite. Personally, I keep my mouth shut because providing for my family is more important than (best case scenario) changing someone's mind, and I'm guessing that's everyone else's strategy as well.

> everyone wants primarily to be left alone, not harassed, and wants to coexist, and be respected. Is it the same from yours?

Nominally, yes. But even with that I think that's where there's a lot of disagreement. What does coexistence mean exactly? Does it mean forcing people to accept others into their spaces? What if a company wants to exclusively hire men? What if they want to exclusively hire Christians? To me, infringing on the right of free association is at odds with being left alone. Am I being left alone if a significant amount of my income is being confiscated against my will and spent in a way that I disagree with? What does being respected mean? Is it forcing people to use certain pronouns, even if you don't think it aligns with their biological sex, and it feels like lying?

Re: After getting Jimmy Kimmel suspended, FCC chair threatens ABC's The View

#183

Post by zahlman »

kelnos wrote: post #133
erulabs wrote: post #109

A lot of things can be true at the same time: - The FCC shouldn't be involved in content moderation, and the FCC Chair is obviously on an authoritarian power trip. - What Kimmel said was wrong (assuming you believe Utah state investigators) and deeply irresponsible and inflammatory. - Clearly the market was already deciding that Kimmel's show is irrelevant (Nielsen ratings quite clear on that). - The FCC is only invo…

> What Kimmel said was wrong (assuming you believe Utah state investigators) and deeply irresponsible and inflammatory. What Kimmel said[0] was fairly innocuous and not all that big a deal. What he said was actually true, in general, about conservative discourse, regardless of what the shooter's politics are. Carr directly threatened ABC's broadcast license over protected speech, even in the context of the FCC's mand…

> There still seems to be a bunch of confusion and misinformation about what Kimmel said, so: "We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang trying to characterize this kid who killed Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it."

The FCC should not be threatening ABC over this, but the statement is, on the available evidence, wrong, irresponsible and inflammatory. It's wrong because it insinuates that the killer was "one of them" (completely untrue per Utah state investigators), irresponsible because there was no good reason to believe it (the alternative narratives require some deep reading into cryptic fringe political groups) and because of the timing, and inflammatory because of the nature of the allegation (it's not a nice thing to say about anyone even when it's demonstrably true).

> What he said was actually true, in general, about conservative discourse, regardless of what the shooter's politics are.

The statement cannot be evaluated for "truth in general" because it referred to a specific incident. If he'd wanted to assert something about what "the MAGA gang" generally does, he could have done so. But the point was specifically to tie into current events.

(I also don't really understand the objection. What, are conservatives not supposed to disavow political violence? Is everyone on the right supposed to accept responsibility for the consequences of every other right-wing political philosophy? Please be careful about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-group_homogeneity .)

Re: After getting Jimmy Kimmel suspended, FCC chair threatens ABC's The View

#185

Post by 0x68cdbcd0 »

kanbara wrote: post #170
0x68cdbcd0 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

how can you say you only want cooperation when the viewpoints you and your brethren share are dehumanising, against a peaceful world, against caring for the environment, against minorities, against queer folk, and against international cooperation? we arent talking about “how many immigrants should we allow”, we’re talking about “trans people shouldnt exist”, “christianity is the true religion”, “deport all legal imm…

[flagged]

Re: After getting Jimmy Kimmel suspended, FCC chair threatens ABC's The View

#186

Post by mocheeze »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #163
ownlife wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did Jimmy Kimmel celebrate the assassination? (He did not.)

No, enough people were angered by him when he accused Trump supporters of killing Kirk that abc had to pull for financial reasons. Not sure why he would’ve said that on a comedy show.

No, Kimmel accused Trump supporters of publicly trying to distance themselves from the shooter.

Re: After getting Jimmy Kimmel suspended, FCC chair threatens ABC's The View

#187

Post by [deleted] »

Jtsummers wrote: post #110
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They stood for free speech; but judging by the downvotes here, the left didn't care about their free speech. If it did, my post above wouldn't be at -4, while the inflammatory answer above is still in the black. The left instead rationalized it under "free speech is not freedom from consequences", called them Nazis, fascists, bigots, homophobes, misogynists, you'd need a thesaurus. Every slur in the thesaurus, they u…

You seem to be done editing this finally, so I'll quote (in case you edit it again) and respond: > When your opponent plays dirty, when your figureheads get killed or nearly killed, why uphold the rules? The Constitution wasn't shredded after Lincoln's assassination, Kennedy's, the attempt on Reagan. Why shred it now? You either believe in the principles, or you do not. If you don't, just admit it instead of complain…

[deleted]

Re: After getting Jimmy Kimmel suspended, FCC chair threatens ABC's The View

#188

Post by zahlman »

hakunin wrote: post #127
erulabs wrote: post #109

A lot of things can be true at the same time: - The FCC shouldn't be involved in content moderation, and the FCC Chair is obviously on an authoritarian power trip. - What Kimmel said was wrong (assuming you believe Utah state investigators) and deeply irresponsible and inflammatory. - Clearly the market was already deciding that Kimmel's show is irrelevant (Nielsen ratings quite clear on that). - The FCC is only invo…

> - What Kimmel said was wrong (assuming you believe Utah state investigators) and deeply irresponsible and inflammatory. I agree that we should be disavowing violence. The problem is that for 10 years democratic lawmakers and media figures are disavowing violence on both sides, while republican lawmakers and media figures are doing the opposite: stoking the flames, promoting the idea of civil war, telling everyone t…

> for 10 years democratic lawmakers and media figures are disavowing violence on both sides, while republican lawmakers and media figures are doing the opposite

It was not a Republican media figure who made that video of herself holding "a mask styled to look like the severed, bloody head" of the POTUS.

Among the biggest-name political Twitch streamers, it's not the right-wingers who are being shown to have all sorts of clips calling for political violence, making threats that include brandishing firearms on stream, doxxing people etc. — all of which are blatant TOS violations, but which never seem to get them banned. From the evidence available to me, the CEO of Twitch seems to be quite friendly with the most egregious of those streamers.

> So when one side keeps constantly disavowing, and the other side keeps constantly attacking, at some point disavowing becomes literally the wrong thing to do. You can't lay down your weapon while the other person just keeps hitting, and expect the hitting to stop.

I can assure you the other side feels the same way. There are even supercuts out there of Trump repeatedly disavowing violence that he was still accused of not disavowing.

Re: After getting Jimmy Kimmel suspended, FCC chair threatens ABC's The View

#189

Post by zahlman »

Jcowell wrote: post #174
ajross wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He... sorta did: "We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them [...]" The sentence is convoluted but clearly implies that "this kid" was "one of the MAGA gang". Is that what Kimmel meant ? No, his point was that they (the MAGA gang) were exploiting the tragedy to "score political points". But it's not…

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

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

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

Re: After getting Jimmy Kimmel suspended, FCC chair threatens ABC's The View

#190

Post by ajross »

jrmg wrote: post #149
erulabs wrote: post #109

A lot of things can be true at the same time: - The FCC shouldn't be involved in content moderation, and the FCC Chair is obviously on an authoritarian power trip. - What Kimmel said was wrong (assuming you believe Utah state investigators) and deeply irresponsible and inflammatory. - Clearly the market was already deciding that Kimmel's show is irrelevant (Nielsen ratings quite clear on that). - The FCC is only invo…

Here’s a full transcript of the monologue - which is absurdly hard to find in all the coverage. https://pastebin.com/25ZmRNwj

> absurdly hard to find in all the coverage.

By design. If it was actually offensive Fox would be playing it non-stop. The offense has been excavated from inside an implication of a phrase in a nested clause in a sentence saying something unrelated.

Kimmel said (as part of an argument that republicans were playing politics by pointing fingers) that republicans were trying to prove that Robinson was not a republican , from which you have to infer that Kimmel meant to say Robinson was a republican.

Post reply on HN