USpolitics

Rosanne did not have the government threatening that she needed to go out the regulatory agencies were going to do things the hard way to them. She made a very specific raciat comment about a specific person.

Same with Gina, there was zero government threat. BTW the event that triggered her dismissal was not what you said, it was saying the Republicans had it as bad as Jews during the Holocaust. Some people got offended by her pronoun thing, but her job was intact for a long time after that because most people didn't care.

Kimmel had the FCC chair openly threaten to make life miserable for abc and its affiliates. This was not because he says anything about Charlie himself, but called out MAGA for trying to politically weaponize the event. In the wake of the event, another right winger on NPR similarly said he was glad that NPR was defunded because the interviewer was so hateful. What did she say? That political violence was a problem for both sides, giving the example of the assassination of democratic politicians this year. This undermined his rant about how only leftists were violent and he got super pissed.

I'm trying to say that the correct way to think about is either A) all of these firings are bad or B) all of these firings are fine. There are no other options.

That is the stupidest fucking thing I have read on this site. Nothing on this world is black and white, and your refusal to actually look at this situation and see the difference is willfull ignorance. Do better or just shit the fuck up.

c) each of these firings are different

I'm trying to say that the correct way to think about is either A) all of these firings are bad or B) all of these firings are fine. There are no other options.

Yeah, no.

One thing is a company not wanting to be represented by a controversial statement of a public figure (because it would affect their business negatively), the other is the government suppressing dissent. It would be insane, or moronic, to think these two cases should be assessed equally.

You making this comparison is subjectively vile to me.

1. I suppose you can say things are subjectively vile, but I just don't see accusing the right of trying to weaponize an event with fake grief and outrage as meeting the criteria. Every other shooting has the right accuse the left of politicizing the event for political gains and we don't generally say that it's "vile" in an of itself.

2. Sure

3. The administration had absolutely zero to do with Rosanne. No government official threatened regulatory punishment over her behavior.

What's vile are the MAGA attempts to falsely tie the shooting to transgender Americans who are already being persecuted for who they are. Pushing back against that, particularly when the far-right is responsible for far more extremist-linked deaths than the far-left, is the only sensible thing to do.

#1 is junk because that's just, like, your opinion, man. Also for reasons I'll come back to for #3.

#2, how's that working out for them? Either they're shit at business which is possible or it was a getting-leaned-on-by-the-administration decision which is a problem.

#3, decent humans have decided that it's not cool to go after a person because somebody thinks that person's race is icky. That's what Barr did. Her shit-canning wasn't about having views that were in opposition to the administration, it was about being a piece of shit.

Kirk chose to be a fountain of hateful verbal diarrhea and no reasonable person should mourn his passing. Kimmel's comments were tame and inoffensive by all but the meltiest of snowflakey GOP crybully standards. That's also how we come back to #1.