It’s good to hear that Jimmy is back. However…Sinclair has said they won’t air the show on their affiliate stations. They’ll probably run their usual propaganda that masquerades as “news” instead.
I wasn’t specifically talking about Kimmel, the left wing commentators I was referring to (having looked back) were a guy who calls himself Destiny and another called Hasan.
Their attitudes towards Kirk’s murder (mostly Destiny’s) were quite honestly, disgusting and go against everything that makes humanity good.
As for Kimmel, I’ve watched his monologue now, and whilst it seems very contradictory to what the police have said, he was expressing his free speech rights and personally I don’t feel he should be fired.
I’d much rather he has on guests involved in the case who can be at liberty to discuss certain aspects (without jeopardising the case) and have an informed discussion and then hopefully an educated position on the matter.
I suppose im baffled by the way humanity is going, it’s sad.
The glee in death of the opposition is tragic.
In the UK I cannot stand Tommy Robinson, he irritates me more then I can articulate.
But I wouldn’t want him dead, or silenced by the powers that be… nor would i gloat in his death, were it to happen.
Rather, I’d like to see debate and have these topics argumented! I loved seeing Kirk get demolished at Oxford.
I took great joy in watching Hitchen’s absolutely run through the likes of D’Souza, Turek and Lennox.
Thats how it should be and what I in particular find baffelling.
Sure, but we have our own issues too, more so with knife crime.
The real issue though is people not debating in good faith anymore.
It’s more, “I don’t like X’s position, so we need to deplatform him/her”.
The moment you do that, for me you’ve lost and shown you’re completely incapable of being reasonable and trustworthy.
I wasn’t either
I’ve never heard of either although I looked up Destiny and am watching him in a Q&A with students at Colorado State Uni. I haven’t heard him say anything terrible. Although there are many references to something he said on Piers Morgan.
You do know that Kimmel is a comedian and not hosting a current affairs show right.
Yeah he said some pretty hideous things, but again. Whilst I think it abhorrent and I’d rather people articulate themselves better (referring to nazis everytime just dilutes how horrendous the nazis actually were), I would defend their rights to speak freely.
For the record, I’ve never said they should banned, nor punished… just their utterances are bollocks.
I am aware, however, when in his monologue he states ‘facts’ about the case that are contradictory to the facts made by the police and other law enforcements agencies, he ought to know far better.
What facts did Kimmel state about the case?
Let’s begin by seeing what he stated generally, and then determine if these are facts about the case, and/or whether they were contradictory to facts made by the police, etc.
“The Maga Gang are desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.”
and
“many in MAGA land are working very hard to capitalise on the murder of Charlie Kirk”
So from the outset, neither of these are claims being made about the case. They’re both claims about how a political “group” (MAGA) are dealing with a particular event.
Now understandably the police and law enforcement agencies aren’t going to be making any statements on what “MAGA” are doing - why would they?
Are you claiming he said something else that relates to the case?
Yes there is a claim, you’ve just made it abundantly clear…
The evidence brought forward by US law enforcement agencies has demonstrated he was not maga.
And Kimmel is a smart man, he ought to have known better!
On a sidenote, I didn’t like the wording of “just a kid” it paints a picture of just some young child/teen… he’s 22yr old and a grown arse adult.
But I can hold my hands up and say thats me being picky.
I think they’re fair points tbh, whenever people make generic criticisms of MAGA in public, I always cringe a little, it’s lazy stereotyping, don’t get me wrong we all do it, but if you have a (comedy) show reaching millions, then your assertions ought to be either demonstrably satire, or you ought to be specific. I think the phrase “the MAGA gang” was always going to be problematic. I mean how compelling do you find arguments are preceded by the phrase the crazy lunatic left? I’ve usually stopped listening, as I am not interested in biased rhetoric.
Ultimately it’s the act of using an assassination as any form of political capital that is wrong, so I don’t care which side of the political divide is doing that. The point is that the easier guns are to obtain, the more tragic gun deaths will result, that’s a point that should be hammered every time. The why’s and even the who’s are irrelevant to that point, there will always be people intent on violence, in any sensible society you would do your utmost to try and make sure they can’t get their hands on a gun.
The claim doesn’t dispute that - the claim was that maga were trying to characterise him as anything other than one of them.
It’s like saying “x group were trying to class bob as anything other than a penguin”
Bob isn’t a penguin, and that has no bearing on the fact that x group have tried to class him as anything other than a penguin.
This is precisely my point from the off, of what is dramatically wrong with this whole situation.
I’m not even sure how Kimmel even got brought up, but I agree his comments were sloppy at best.
My issue, as stated initially is the flippant use of the term ‘nazi’ for anyone who isn’t of a far left political ideological point of view.
It’s just lazy shit house tactics to stop opposing arguements.
I’m quite central on most issues, even left leaning on many… i’m pro womens choice, i’m anti gun, pro free speech, i’m anti theist and so on…
Yet, I hold a view such as, I genuinely do not feel trans women should be allowed into biolgical womens safe spaces (e.g. toilets) or sports and tah dah, now I’m goose stepping to my Panzer tank…
And even then, my concern isn’t from an anti trans position, I think their issues are real issues and deserving of love and compassion, but my position is pro biological women and protecting them.
I agree.
Again I’d agree there.
Well not quite, on the sports issue I’d agree, at the very least the safety of those competing where there was a large enough difference in strength, bone density, testosterone etc is reason enough to be cautious. Besides the fight for trans rights has more important issues IMHO.
Safe spaces is a little different, as I see no evidence that people whose gender identity is female, but whose biological sex is male, are any threat to women. I also don’t think this is a massive issue.
I agree with the sport issue, but as for the safe spaces, I’d need to see evidence that a trans woman was any threat to other women, as I am not convinced. I’d have no problem with erring on the side of caution and assigning gender neutral spaces in bathroom and changing rooms. Though this might make some feel like they are being singled out, so it’s a stop gap maybe.
And that is fine, we are allowed to disagree and I respect your opinion.
For the record, for me, it’s not necessarily that they are a ‘threat’ to biological women, as to why they shouldn’t be allowed into those safe spaces.
It’s the fact they just are not biological women.
I would never pidgeon hole trans women as being a threat to biological women, thats unfair and I’ve also yet to see the evidence that it happens like that.
But just simply put, they are biological womens safe spaces and should be left to them.
I wholeheartedly agree with perhaps gender neutral toilets being added alongside existing spaces as a stop gap of sorts.
But again, this is one of the few stances I have that may be considered right wing, I’d likely in many spaces be called far right etc…
Kimmel re-instated it seems, and he has come out swinging at Trump as well, joined by acting legend Robert DeNiro.
De Niro told Kimmel that only praise for Trump was now free, but insults would come at a price.
“You want to say something nice about the president’s beautiful thick yellow hair and how he can do his make-up better than any broad, that’s free,” De Niro said. “But if you want to do a joke like, ‘He’s so fat he needs two seats on the Epstein jet’, that’s going to cost you.” De Niro struggled to suppress a smile.
Kimmel asked: “For clarity, because it’s a pretty good joke, how much would that one cost me?”
“A couple of fingers, maybe a tooth,” came the reply."
He’s right, that is pretty funny.
protecting them from what exactly?
1 Like
Hi @Nyarlathotep ,
Protect womens rights, under the equality act.
Although I respect that this only stands within the UK.
They should be allowed safe spaces that are not infringed upon.
Wouldn’t it be great if there actually WERE spaces that are completely safe for women.
Spoiler alert: there aren’t any.
Can you guess who predominantly makes those spaces unsafe?
Please cite any studies showing that cis women are unsafe in restrooms shared by trans women.
2 Likes
Hi CyberLN,
So, by ‘safe-space’ it’s not meant in the literal sense in the UK, but it’s meant as ‘single sex environments’.
I’m not saying Trans people are commiting violent acts and have not said they are previously, but as per my original post… my words I think are being misconstrued… albeit, with no ill intent I suspect.
My point in this particular instance is that biological females should be allowed their own ‘safe-spaces’ (single sex environments) that are not encroached upon.
I have to say I’m surprised that stating it’s bad to be calling people ‘nazi’s’ flippantly and biological women having their own spaces appears to be disagreeable.
But I respect your opinions.
My point is that they ARE encroached upon. If people intent on ill will enter these areas without regard to them being designated as “for women only”, then I do not understand why anyone would bother to try and block a trans woman from entering.
That trans woman uses a restroom designated for women’s use in order TO STAY SAFE. She runs a FAR higher risk of danger using a men’s restroom than cis women run if she uses a women’s restroom.
2 Likes
I envision that if a person enters a restroom and they are dressed appropriately for that restroom, there isn’t a problem, even if this whole cis vs trans thing isn’t as some would describe. The only problem I see is if that person were not dressed appropriately - and that would be a problem regardless.
I tend to think that all this preoccupation with things that might, hypothetically, happen to a biological woman should a (gasp) trans woman use the same restroom at the same time has way less to do with reality than with people’s own little potty brains. It is based on the ridiculous assumption that trans women are men in drag who want to surreptitiously peep at women’s private parts by creeping into bathrooms. It is a deliberate attempt to not understand what transexuality is about or what its impetus is or what it is like to be transexual, and also, to conflate it with things that it is not, but that people, for various reasons, want to assume or believe that it is. That it is some kind of beyond-the-pale perversion the very existence of which scars innocent minds or … something.
In actual reality, any cishet woman who uses public restrooms regularly (particularly in urban areas) has, at some point in life, and likely multiple times, unknowingly shared it with a trans woman, without (1) even being aware of it and without (2) any incident whatsoever, including actual on-the-sly peeping.
Such prurient interest on the part of cishet-insecure persons, just leads to spectacles like the occasional stories you read about some woman who “looked too masculine” being asked to leave a restroom or to “prove” that they were a woman. Or to things like online influencer Candace Owens being obsessed with the conspiracy theory that Emmanuel Macron’s wife is really a man in disguise and/or trans woman (and in the fevered mind of people like that, there’s probably no difference).
It all boils down to the same tired old problem: an inability to leave people the hell alone to be their authentic selves and to mind one’s own business.
1 Like
I never said they are or aren’t encroached upon, did I?
I said they “shouldn’t” be, out of respect.
We all grow up differently and hold different values and opinions.
I grew up with two older sisters and a strong mother, so that respect for women and their requirements is something built into me.
And before anyone else decides to twist what I say, I’m not saying that others haven’t been raised similar, or with good values etc… just clarifying where my own stem from.