The real danger here is that ABC did it before the White House ordered or told them too.
Fascists rise in power the more scared we are to speak.
So strange how people that actually support limiting the 1st amendment are now outraged by someone simply losing their job.
"... our First Amendment stands as a major block to be able to just, you know, hammer it out of existence. So what we need is to win the ground, win the right to govern, by hopefully winning enough votes that you're free to be able to implement change." - John Kerry
huh
Like, literally, your ability to understand the world around you.
If that's not "tech," then I think folks need to broaden their perspective.
My explanation was a little bit narrow by mentioning tech though, that just happens to be the general thing shared most of the time.
Since everything is connected to everything else, by your logic, every discussion forum must discuss everything.
If you prefer more open-ended discussions about everything, I would suggest trying Twitter or Bluesky .
Stay with me, as I'm being sincere and not trying to be condescending.
Most people do not well-enough conceptualize how civilization works. I know this because of the mistakes that smart people very commonly make when offering politicized opinions. To take them on their word, one would have to categorize them as violent radicals. When the reality is that most are likely making a mistake in thinking or articulation.
Civilization is important to properly conceptualize, and not approach haphazardly, as this exercise allows you to control your thoughts and behaviors toward upkeeping civilization rather than having a hand in destroying it. Whether or not you know that's what you are doing. The line for this can elude smart people.
If someone thinks that they want to destroy civilization, they don't really.
Civilization has traditionally allowed for limited volume of extra-legal political violence like contained riots of a limited type, without falling apart. Civilization has a limited amount of flexibility in that manner.
Another form of this limited flexibility is its tolerance for a limited amount of low level crime and financial crime. But it is limited on both counts, referencing developed Nation standards of civilization.
Before civilization, inter-tribal warfare was the only reality. The stronger tribe would wipe the weaker tribe's genetics off of the face of the Earth. Apart from commonly raping its women.
At some point, about 11,000 years ago in the record and inferred well before that, a hunter gatherer tribe decided to grow people like they do crops. In one place, and by helping to facilitate what they needed to survive. The first town.
To make this work, they had to slowly transmute war violence into thesis / antithesis political processes like debate. Over time, and skipping over a lot of political evolution, this morphed into a complex and smoother system.
We can still see the violence encapsulated in political processes like voting and debate, because again it's only encased within them and not gone. Civilization encapsulates violence like a resin or sap would. The violence is largely immobile but still visible. What is voting if not a peaceful form of warfare, for example.
The difference between civilization and warfare, that is the line, is whether or not we can observe that encapsulated violence while being largely physically non-reactive still maintain politics.
Claiming that words are real violence is the first major step to destroying civilization and entering a period of real warfare.
The second step is freeing the physical violence from its capsules, sometimes justified by the lie that words are violence.
Words are very specifically the opposite option to violence, acknowledging that all human tribal interaction is in a sense violent.
The only way that civilization is maintained over ancient warfare is if the lie that politics is real warfare is not advanced by horrible actors.
Political processes all encapsulate violence. To maintain civilization, that is where it has to be observed and left.
The system has a duty to suppress that violence the second that it leaves its capsule, regardless of the side.
And assuming that bad actors aren't working to destroy the system by undermining trust in it via by abusing it to lie about the violence or crime that it will target.
With some exceptions that the system has attempted to correct, the system does real violence against individuals usually only when it perceives that people are conducting their own type of real warfare outside of political processes.
This is to assure that extra-legal warfare does not replace civilization. If a person robs me, then they are conducting low-level warfare against me. The system seeks to punish that person as result. The criminal code illustrates where the system is authorized to act with violence in order to suppress low level and high level warfare.
As long as the primary tribal violence stays encapsulated in political processes, then the system continues.
You have democracy when people widely commit to democratic political processes over violence.
You have ancient warfare when people cast aside those processes.
You have severe delusion when people cast aside those processes but still expect to be protected by the system while continuing to conduct extra-legal physically violent warfare.
Extra-legal physical violence is ancient warfare. Extra-legal physical violence becomes more threatening to civilization as it either grows in volume or as it targets more politically significant individuals.
Enacting or approving of extra-legal violence makes you a violent extremist militant or a supporter of such, who is outside of the system. This is how the system will see you. To what degree that is true depends on the scale and political impact of the violence.
Your party and this country are in a severe crisis.
Someone just took their third shot at a highest-level political leader in the span of a little over a year, and this time it killed him.
There is no replacing this leader. It severely damages one of the two party's ability to operate. Objectively, it was an act of warfare.
The only question is whether or not it was an act of warfare by a single lone nutcase, or an act of warfare that is systemically approved of by voters and institutions.
This is what is under analysis as we speak, and it will decide everything.
If this were an isolated psycho and not a fully systemic violent radicalization issue for the democrat party, then what we would see is popular level widespread condemnations and self-reflection. Rising to higher level influencers like Kimmel.
Instead, Kimmel acts like a propagandist in a violent extremist cell.
He gaslights his radicalized followers that one party is continuing to try to assassinate itself.
Which should be one of your primary indications that you are horribly brainwashed and radicalized as a group. You need to step back from this.
The overall message of the democrats has been "we didn't do it, but he had it coming". Insane nonsense, which no one believes but the radicals.
Whatever excuses you try to make about supposed equivalencies, there are none in practice. You are only deluding yourself into a worse state if you think that this can be met other than head-on with anything but massive contrition and reform.
The firings are largely centered around trying to punish voices that are spreading violent radicalization messages that are either explicit or tacit assassination approval.
Notice that Enterprise scale businesses are joining in this effort in this one rare instance in the modern age. They are trying to hard-steer the democrat party away from any more inflammation of this situation.
This is because, for once, they understand how dire this situation is. Given the widespread democrat approach to this and apparent widespread radicalization.
Kimmel is off of the air because, unfortunately, it took the opposing aggrieved administration to legally threaten abc into taking action. This is very gentle anti-radicalization effort.
Whereas to properly deal with and heal this situation, assuming that sliver-edge possibility, what the democrat party and its members need to do is show that they are self-deradicalizing and that this action by deranged individual is not approved of at a structural level in liberal institutions.
This includes not giving your party messages that are crazy lies about who the shooter was. Which serves to maintain radicalization and prevent the party from seeing itself clearly and truthfully.
I personally stopped listening to democrats after the 2020 riots, because I saw how willing they were to operate with terroristic violence outside of the system and for a horribly corrupt narrative prior to an election. Terrorizing the nation running up to that election over a long span of time. I'm speaking to persistent institutional approval of that violence, which is a different orientation from any other institutional structure in the West.
I was right that the nine months of institutionally approved riots in 2020, and the farce of a trial that bookended them in addition to the election, were horrific harbingers.
This situation has a direct connection to the permissive violence of the long-standing 2020 riots, the denial of structural complicity for the attempts on the former and soon to be President at the time (with widespread approval also being evident), and the overt widespread lionization of Luigi Mangione.
Your party has a massive structural radicalization issue that you need to work as hard as you ever have. As a party, you need to convince your opposition. Right now, the opposite is well in-progress.
The continued free-for-all radicalized speech in this forum is insane.
theossuary•1h ago
joemazerino•1h ago
bigyabai•1h ago
Both have their issues. You're just yelling into the wind if you think this will keep politics off late-night TV.
add-sub-mul-div•1h ago