Most active commenters
  • suzdude(3)

←back to thread

125 points voxadam | 11 comments | | HN request time: 1.326s | source | bottom
1. tw04 ◴[] No.45339283[source]
Did you have a sibling growing up? Did you ever have that sibling beat the crap out of you and tell you it'd be worse if you told mom about it?

The chair of the FCC literally threatened them in public. It doesn't matter if "ABC admitted they didn't get pressure" in some attempt to appease Trump. We all got to watch and hear it for ourselves.

2. suzdude ◴[] No.45339306[source]
The chair of the FCC said:

>What people don’t understand is that the broadcasters … have a license granted by us at the FCC, and that comes with it an obligation to operate in the public interest. When we see stuff like this, look, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct, on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.

Do you really want to pretend that he is no applying pressure by threatening businesses who broadcast speech he doesn't like?

replies(1): >>45339560 #
3. nkrisc ◴[] No.45339385[source]
When you’re in a position of power, every word you utter has meaning and the weight of your authority behind it.
4. saubeidl ◴[] No.45339518[source]
"Nice broadcast license you have there. Shame if anything happened to it"
5. blaufuchs ◴[] No.45339546[source]
“He gave an answer” is comically dishonest framing, so it doesn’t matter what that answer is at all? Nice deflection at the end there, almost convinced me.
6. cvwright ◴[] No.45339560[source]
So you’re telling me that, in the past 10 years, this was the only speech on network TV that the Trump crowd didn’t like?

Kimmel got caught spreading blatant falsehood about who the shooter was. That has always been against the rules for public airwaves.

replies(2): >>45341131 #>>45345311 #
7. suzdude ◴[] No.45341131{3}[source]
> 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

There's Mr. Kimmel's quote. Where did he lie? He never said what Mr. Robinson's political affiliations are or where.

replies(1): >>45351011 #
8. nkrisc ◴[] No.45345311{3}[source]
What was the blatant falsehood that he said? Exact words, please.
9. mensetmanusman ◴[] No.45351011{4}[source]
It might be confusing for a non English speaker:

The important part is: “characterize … as anything other than one of them.”

This structure means:

“to describe (someone) not as belonging to a certain group, but as belonging to some other group instead.”

“Them” here points back to the MAGA gang (mentioned earlier in the sentence).

So, “one of them” = “a member of the MAGA gang.”

Other than” in English means “except” or “different from.”

“Anything other than one of them” = “any possible identity, except being part of MAGA.”

In English, this formula has a special pragmatic force:

Literal meaning: “Describe as any category that is not X.”

Implied meaning: “The truth is probably X, but the speaker is trying to deny it.”

This works because if there weren’t evidence for “X,” there would be no need to deny or redirect away from it.

replies(2): >>45351630 #>>45359002 #
10. suzdude ◴[] No.45351630{5}[source]
Yeah ... it seems some english speakers, are really struggling to tell the difference between what was literally said, and what they wanted to hear.

It would be wise to learn the difference between reality and projection.

11. cvwright ◴[] No.45359002{5}[source]
A big part of modern discourse is people tactically pretending to not know stuff