Wait. During Monday's episode? You saw this with your own eyes? Because I recorded it and watched it several times and I saw/heard no such reference to Groyper nor Nick Fuentes. Perhaps he had done so on another show. I'm only bringing it up here because I'm trying to understand what happened.
No, he didn't reference the specifics. He asserted MAGA was trying to frame the shooter as "something other than one of their own." He was referring to the Fuentes/Groyper theory that was inferred by some because of the etchings on the cartridge casings. It's a bullshit theory, and any comedian who'd tried to make that kind of a joke about the killing of Gabby Giffords or Melissa Horton would have been eviscerated. It was tasteless, and for a guy who works in a milieu that is a money-loser for broadcast networks, it was stupid.
Now, could we leave this issue alone?
No, we can't leave it alone yet... I was just about to post the following:
I was listening to the news on my way in, and every time they brought up the Jimmy Kimmel shit, I was incensed. I know Raz asked me kindly to keep politics out of here, and I'm generally fine with that, but I don't even see this as a political statement. It's not being able to speak freely in case someone misinterprets your statement. The man was booted from his show because he basically said that both extremes are acting crazy. The left is celebrating the murderer (Jimmy thought this was insane and did not agree), and the right is doing everything in its power to make sure the murderer is not associated with being one of their own.
I'm sure there is more to this story. Perhaps Jimmy even posted shit on social media. But the news is stating only what I mentioned above, and nothing about Groyper or Fuentes. What am I missing?
There was nothing equal opportunity about it. Here's the quote:
"We hit 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 doing everything they can to score political points from it," Kimmel said during his opening monologue. "In between the finger-pointing, there was, uh, grieving on Friday − the White House flew the flags at half-staff, which got some criticism, but on a human level, you can see how hard the president is taking this."
Was that all he said about Kirk? Because I read that quote yesterday as well, but based on how you reacted, I thought maybe there was more to it that just wasn't included in the article. Obviously, I didn't hear him say it, but I don't even see which part of that would be construed as an inappropriate joke. Like Tony said, it kinda sounds like he's just summarizing the situation. Yes, some on the left are celebrating his death, and yes, some on the right are trying to use the situation to score political points.
If you don't want to discuss it anymore, that's fair enough, I just don't see why that's so terrible. I don't even think I can say it's in bad taste, because again, he's basically describing the situation.
Dave, you and I are not ever going to see it the same way. A'ight? That's why I didn't come in here and say anything about Charlie Kirk when he was assassinated, and I didn't even respond to your quote about him yesterday. I know we're going to look at it, and Charlie Kirk, differently.
So let's just stay away from this issue. I won't bring it up, and you don't bring it up, out of mutual respect. How about that? Let's just agree that this is radioactive. Donald Trump, Republicans, Democrats, the media, billionaires, guns...just about everything else is fair territory, and we can both give as we get. But the assassination of Charlie Kirk is out-of-bounds, because we're going to accomplish nothing except to make each other really angry.
