Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The sentence does carry the implication that Kimmel is calling the shooter "MAGA" True. > because otherwise there would be no reason, in Kimmel's position, to say any of it. Untrue. In context, what he's saying (this is clear in the sentences before and after) is that MAGA is playing politics by arguing about attribution. Remember in the early hours it did look like the shooter might have been a groyper, and even F…
> is that MAGA is playing politics by arguing about attribution. Arguing about attribution would only be wrong, or worth pointing out, if they had a "MAGA" dead to rights about it. The context is a show that frequently bashes "MAGA", Trump and that entire political alignment, and only gets significant viewership when doing so. > in the early hours it did look like the shooter might have been a groyper This was a stra…
But not the only reading. Which you seem to agree with because you dodged that point. So if there are two interpretations, one offensive and one not, surely you agree that the reasonable reaction is just to discuss things like adults, right?
And not for the FCC commissioner to go out in public and threaten an unconstitional censorship of political speech, right?
Because you agree that Kimmel could have been innocent of the terrible crimes he was accused of.
Look, I'm not telling you that you aren't angry. I'm telling you that you're letting your anger lead you into some very scary places. Because those same tools can destroy Hannity too.