This is not cancel culture. What Jimmy Kimmel did was always out of bounds.
It depends on to what extent the killing was leftist violence, and who you're referring to when you say "them".
What do you think were the killer's motivations? Let's see how closely you've been paying attention.
When I say "them" it is in reference to the statements made in the wake of political violence. You hear a lot of mentions of "them" from pundits and politicians. It's a cowardly way to let the viewer fill in whatever they want for "them", "the left", "maga", "antifa", "globalists", etc.
What were the killer's motivations? I haven't been paying close attention.
To the extent that this person is slandering someone I condemn it. To the extent that this person is referring to the bad actors responsible I support it.
Seems rather simple to me but let me know what you don't understand.
> What were the killer's motivations? I haven't been paying close attention.
I'm not trying to be combative but you're speaking from a place of willful ignorance. This is adding very little to the conversation.
It's not a specific "them" but rather a placeholder for anyone in opposition to the person speaking. Just look at tweets from prominent figures immediately after the Pennsylvania assassination attempt. "They did this." "We need to protect ourselves from them."
You reframe the use of "them" as an accusation about a person who can claim slander. It's not that. It's a cowardly way to avoid facing reprecussions by slandering a vague group.
> you're speaking from a place of willful ignorance
Except the conversation is about being consistent in condemning people who use "them" reactively. It doesn't matter if Kimmel is right or wrong in claiming the shooter is maga, which - for me - is the more important conversation.
https://x.com/martinwalsh__/status/1967758029157437754
https://x.com/MalcolmNance/status/1967903888868077994
https://x.com/AlHSantana/status/1968104234588717543
https://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/sacramento/abc10-sh...
Who do you condemn?
rate limited when i replied to you so my response below:
>We had some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and with everything they can to score political points from it.”
Where is the lie?
In my defense, I linked to a very recent exchange that I had with that exact same person about nearly the same topic. In a normal conversation or debate that would be considered totally appropriate, and I imagine I was caught by an automated rule, since I was immediately throttled.
But I understand the reason for the rule and I will attempt not to break it again. Sorry to give you more work and thanks for the site.