domain:worksinprogress.co
orthoxerox
If you can read this, you're using a custom theme
7m ago
It's one of the symptoms of magnesium deficiency, IIRC.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
30m ago
Skeletor used this phrase: "knowingly and falsely accused followers of the president of murder". Kimmel did not make any accusation at all. That is supplied by your brain as it tries to fill in the blanks. He made two claims which are my main bullet points, and that's it. Neither is an accusation.
Why was Kimmel fired, precisely, do you think?
OK well technically he was just suspended. The ABC decision was essentially forced and not Disney by itself. It was because two broadcasting groups, Nexstar and Sinclair, suspended the show themselves from their channels. Nexstar statement (note: federal approval of merger deal pending) just said that the remarks were "offensive and insensitive". Sinclair statement (note: conservative bias for this one) said it was "inappropriate and deeply insensitive" and name-checked FCC chair Carr's remarks. Note here that offensive/inappropriate/insensitive is NOT a good standard in and of itself for whether a comedian should be fired, especially when politics is involved, so let's dispense with that. So if that's the actual reasoning and only that, Kimmel's firing is very bad. There must be something else, right?
Carr's original remarks? On a podcast, took me a minute to dig it up, of Benny Johnson, YouTube title: "Jimmy Kimmel LIES About Charlie Kirk Killer, Blames Charlie For His Murder!? Disney Must Fire Kimmel". Johnson plays the clip prefacing with the claim: "ABC News must tell the truth. They must operate in the public interest. This is in their broadcast charter given to them by the federal government. I'm going to play you a clip of Jimmy Kimmel victim blaming Charlie Kirk for his own assassination. This is precisely what happened. It cannot be categorized any other way." Which, of course, as I've demonstrated, is not accurate. Victim blaming? I don't see where. Again, maybe by third-degree implication only, so "cannot be categorized any other way" is false. Anyways, that's Johnson speaking, not Carr.
He does then make the claim above that it's a knowing deception. Relevant quote: "This is a clear-cut violation of the FCC's policy against news distortion and is punishable by the revocation of the offending broadcast license under 47 US Code 312 or at least a hearing of punitive action under 309 section as organizations granted broadcasting licenses will serve in the public interest's convenience and necessity as deliberate news distortion is seen here contrary to the public interest".
FCC website: "The FCC's authority to take action on complaints about the accuracy or bias of news networks, stations, reporters or commentators in how they cover – or sometimes opt to not cover – events is narrow... News distortion "must involve a significant event and not merely a minor or incidental aspect of the news report." In weighing the constitutionality of the policy, courts have recognized that the policy "makes a crucial distinction between deliberate distortion and mere inaccuracy or difference of opinion." As a result, broadcasters are only subject to enforcement if it can be proven that they have deliberately distorted a factual news report. Expressions of opinion or errors stemming from mistakes are not actionable."
It was clear to thinking brains that the shooter was leftist at the time of the clip airing. It was not established however until the next day. It is however true that MAGA was trying to blame other groups (even if the motive is misrepresented). So I think Kimmel is fine here as a matter of law.
Anyways that's all Johnson but it's a good, spelled-out proxy for the positions of the people wanting Kimmel fired, I think, more than press-release vague language. Carr is introduced with this: "thankfully, he's able to join our program today to elucidate for us what the FCC can do now when it comes to ABC News." Carr, a little later: "I at the very least would like to have an on-air apology from Jimmy Kimmel uh to the Kirk family to all of those who he slandered because he did say that Charlie Kirk he is effectively saying that our movement did this. our movement killed Charlie, that Charlie was deserving of this effectively." He tiptoes around a few things but basically says that they are going to start using the public interest statute to go after consistently biased stations and programs. He says that the FCC can do some stuff, but gee whiz, wink wink, wouldn't it be nice if some member stations themselves took care if it themselves by objecting to it? Subtext: so the FCC wouldn't formally be involved, you know, because that would be more legally constrained by law.
I don't like any part of this. It's really a pincer attack, or even a motte and bailey of their own! There's the legal, public-interest claim that deception is against the law and can result in formal action (though a process must be followed, and consequences are not necessarily being taken off air), and that Kimmel did that level of deception, which is weak (also, even Carr himself acknowledges that historically the statue has usually been used for outright broadcast hoaxes, and even then rarely). And then there's the end-run around the law, which is forcing the issue, and the rationale there is a lot more murky. Carr really tries to have it both ways.
So again, I ask you: why was Kimmel suspended?
It's about MAGA feeling offended, not Kimmel spreading disinformation on purpose. It would be one thing if Kimmel spent more time and energy on the point about the shooter's motives, but he doesn't. He only implies them indirectly, even if on the receiving end the message is clear. It isn't Kimmel's point at all. His main point is that Trump is heartless and that offends MAGA, and they try to motte and bailey and finesse him into being suspended without ever having to actually make good on potential government threats. It's of course bad Kimmel misleads his audience, it's bad that this is the outlet the outrage takes, it's bad that the FCC commissioner is trying to finagle the situation with innuendo and implied threats, it's bad that Kimmel is only actually suspended on vague accusations with almost zero detail, it's bad that we don't know the precise, actual reason why Kimmel is suspended. He just is.
The takeaway for most is still that "my opposition deserves to die for their crimes" and it does endanger the target, just not as much as an unqualified call for violence.
"Does, but not as much" is a massive understatement. Someone who wants Joe Biden put on trial won't lead to anyone hurting Joe Biden. Someone who wants right-wingers to be assassinated increases the chance of people assassinating right-wingers. These things are significantly unalike to the point where putting them in the same category is sophistry.
And you seem to agree that Kirk "literally [advocated] for violence"?
Assuming that the Biden quote is correct, only in a noncentral way. If state violence counts, everyone on themotte has literally advocated for violence.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1hr ago
We have a few confessions from soldiers about this.
Three days ago in the Hebrew language Haaretz (translated)
For Bani, a sniper in the Nahal Brigade, changing roles is no longer enough. The wound he describes is too deep, too profound. "It started about two months ago," he testifies. "Every day, we have the same mission: securing humanitarian aid in the northern Gaza Strip." His day, and that of his comrades, begins at 3:30 a.m. Accompanied by drones and armored forces, they set up a sniper position and wait. According to him, between 7:30 and 8:30, the trucks arrive and start unloading their contents. Meanwhile, the residents try to advance to secure a good spot in line, but there's a boundary they don't notice. "A line that, if they cross it, I'm allowed to shoot them," Bani explains. "It's like a game of cat and mouse. They try to approach from different routes, and I'm there with the sniper rifle, with officers shouting at me, 'Take them down, take them down! I fire 50-60 rounds every day, I stopped counting kills. I have no idea how many l've killed, a lot. Children."
Regarding the “boundary they don’t notice”, these may be invisible or only known to the IDF soldiers:
Establishing an invisible “security perimeter” then shooting civilians who cross it has become common practice in Gaza, Israeli soldiers have testified. When asked how his squad decided whether to shoot unarmed Palestinians, Raab said: “Its a question of distance. There is a line that we define. They don’t know where this line is, but we do.”
Raab quoted in the above is an American-Israel dual citizen who was tricked by a journalist into confessing to the killing of a family in Gaza, though not at a food distribution site. He shot an unarmed man, the man’s brother who went to retrieve his body, then the father who went to retrieve the bodies of his sons. This example is unusual in that an international team of journalists pursued all the evidence they could on this one particular instance over five months. So we have a confession, a video of the killing, interviews with witnesses and survivors and the family, death records, and geolocations.
More testimonials from soldiers at the aid sites includes
It's a killing field," one soldier said. "Where I was stationed, between one and five people were killed every day. They're treated like a hostile force – no crowd-control measures, no tear gas – just live fire with everything imaginable: heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, mortars. Then, once the center opens, the shooting stops, and they know they can approach. Our form of communication is gunfire." The soldier added, "We open fire early in the morning if someone tries to get in line from a few hundred meters away, and sometimes we just charge at them from close range. But there's no danger to the forces." According to him, "I'm not aware of a single instance of return fire. There's no enemy, no weapons." He also said the activity in his area of service is referred to as Operation Salted Fish – the name of the Israeli version of the children's game "Red light, green light".
[a different testimony] In one incident, the soldier was instructed to fire a shell toward a crowd gathered near the coastline. "Technically, it's supposed to be warning fire – either to push people back or stop them from advancing," he said. "But lately, firing shells has just become standard practice. Every time we fire, there are casualties and deaths, and when someone asks why a shell is necessary, there's never a good answer. Sometimes, merely asking the question annoys the commanders." In that case, some people began to flee after the shell was fired, and according to the soldier, other forces subsequently opened fire on them. "If it's meant to be a warning shot, and we see them running back to Gaza, why shoot at them?" he asked. "Sometimes we're told they're still hiding, and we need to fire in their direction because they haven't left. But it's obvious they can't leave if the moment they get up and run, we open fire." The soldier said this has become routine. "You know it's not right. You feel it's not right – that the commanders here are taking the law into their own hands. But Gaza is a parallel universe. You move on quickly. The truth is, most people don't even stop to think about it."
[a different testimony] "I was at a similar event. From what we heard, more than ten people were killed there," said another senior reserve officer commanding forces in the area. "When we asked why they opened fire, we were told it was an order from above and that the civilians had posed a threat to the troops. I can say with certainty that the people were not close to the forces and did not endanger them. It was pointless – they were just killed, for nothing. This thing called killing innocent people – it's been normalized. We were constantly told there are no noncombatants in Gaza, and apparently that message sank in among the troops."
[a different testimony] They talk about using artillery on a junction full of civilians as if it's normal," said a military source who attended the meeting. "An entire conversation about whether it's right or wrong to use artillery, without even asking why that weapon was needed in the first place. What concerns everyone is whether it'll hurt our legitimacy to keep operating in Gaza. The moral aspect is practically nonexistent. No one stops to ask why dozens of civilians looking for food are being killed every day." "The fact that live fire is directed at a civilian population – whether with artillery, tanks, snipers, or drones – goes against everything the army is supposed to stand for," he said, criticizing the decisions made on the ground. "Why are people collecting food being killed just because they stepped out of line, or because some commander doesn't like that they're cutting in? Why have we reached a point where a teenager is willing to risk his life just to pull a sack of rice off a truck? And that's who we're firing artillery at?"
[a different testimony] “The claim that these are isolated cases doesn't align with incidents in which grenades were dropped from the air and mortars and artillery were fired at civilians," said one legal official. "This isn't about a few people being killed – we're talking about dozens of casualties every day."
Then of course you have the doctor testimonials. A popular Dutch newspaper just did a big investigation on this last week:
Each time a food distribution point opens, doctors in the hospitals see dozens of civilians arriving with gunshot wounds. Most are boys—teenagers and young adults. They are brought in large groups at once on donkey carts. Some still carry empty food bags. Several doctors notice a pattern in the injuries. The targeted body part differs each day, as if it’s coordinated work, they suggest.
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
1hr ago
What color is the minivan? Darker or greeny colors seem to have more accidents for obvious reasons. (Of course there are also many shitty careless drivers in the world who would blow a stop sign even if the car they were about to ram into were day-glo orange.)
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
1hr ago
The loss of trust in media is in good part self-inflicted yes. I think the conflation of facts with fact-checks, and the laundering of political opinion as fact was not good. For example, NPR lit its own listener trust on fire over the years, even if it was more a slow burn.
Still, a government official - the ultimate government official - should never be mistaken for a friendly uncle. He's currying ingroup loyalty at the explicit cost of more general trust destruction. That's exactly my point, and it's a bad trade. A lot of these utterances are magnified by broader traditional media yes, but they are actually said. While in years past someone suspicious of media spin could go back and just watch the original remarks directly to get the original truth, in recent years often listening to Trump directly leaves you less informed and more confused, with more effort to untangle the web. In short, although the perception of Trump's lies is worse than the reality, the reality of Trump's lies are also worse than prior past. Both are bad. I hate this idea that we need to choose one and only one person or organization or group to blame. And at the end of the day, no one elected the news but the President has special power and his wording matters more, so with greater power comes greater responsibility.
(IIRC that's a bit of an oversimplification of the Obamacare strategy. The original Politifact lie of the year article probably summed it up best: "Obama’s ideas on health care were first offered as general outlines then grew into specific legislation over the course of his presidency. Yet Obama never adjusted his rhetoric to give people a more accurate sense of the law’s real-world repercussions, even as fact-checkers flagged his statements as exaggerated at best." Yep, seems about right. So to be more specific, everyone really knew that the legislative effort would require a lot of changes to pass Congress, so I don't really think it's fair to ding 2007 Obama for the that. 2011 Obama and 2014 Obama, things are different.)
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
1hr ago
If this is a personal question and not an hypothetical question meant to answer my own question, the answer is: Pretty much never. Paresthesia is the word, by the way. The last time I felt it I think I had slept on my arm too long one night.
As far as I know self-diagnosing magnesium deficiency is very, very difficult, as the symptoms (twitchiness, cramps, tremors, jaw clenching) are part of a differential diagnosis for many other conditions. But empirically, if someone noticed these symptoms and either adjusted his/her diet (spinach, quinoa, dark chocolate, whatever) to increase dietary magnesium or went on supplements like magnesium glycinate and then noticed an absence of the symptoms, then okay. I'm wondering though how anyone would know this, though there may be places online where upping one's magnesium is considered common knowledge. My concern would be kidney issues.
anti_dan
2hr ago
Nah. They would win a case if Kimmel was popular and not just propagating lies without comedy on TV. It would be a huge win. Instead they abandoned the guy right after another company abandoned a similar guy who was revealed to be expensive and losing that company lots of money.
If Kimmel merely makes a crass joke he probably gets the Colbert plan. These expensive, bad, shows are clearly set for execution and have been since that weird Jay Leno situation where Conan took over sorta but they also sorta gave Leno his own earlier show then walked it all back. The point is, they all have been a waste of money since approximately then, and have been operating on inertia, and the inertia is breaking.
Tretiak
2hr ago
I'm actually curious now to wonder what the societal winds were like when JFK was assassinated. Does anyone know what the political reaction was like on the other side and the media's response to it?
Tretiak
2hr ago
Nybbler is correct that it's not a microaggression. A microaggression is similar to a backhanded compliment - "You're pretty hardworking for a black guy."
I always thought that was flicking someone's nipple. You learn something new everyday.
Cancel culture is nothing but the current iteration of wanting bad things to happen to people you dislike and the people you hate to have no power to do the same to you. One side may have more influence at any given moment, but even the minority will try and fail at it.
I remember Thomas Hobbes made the interesting analogy of how the Leviathan pacifies the worst impulses and instincts in men and how that deceives them into thinking this veil of civility has made man less barbaric than he otherwise is. In reality, it hasn't. The legal code has just become the new battlefield and substitute for one man to conduct warfare against another. Inter-tribal political warfare has never stopped and will likely never not remain an intrinsic feature of human beings.
Even in ideologically purist societies like Communist China, there are massive internal divisions and all manner of factional infighting between different power brokers and their respective spheres of influence. The Jiang Zemin faction and Xi Jinping faction hated one another. The Hu Jintao faction was independent of both. And all these parties try and use the organs of the CCP to gain leverage and assume power over their rivals. To this end cancel culture is nothing new and I fully agree with you. It may be an anathema to how we conduct our politics in the west but even so, it isn't new.
dr_analog
top 1% of underdog fetishists
3hr ago
wow it was a 6-3 ruling and the 3 liberal justices joined 3 conservatives to argue the no plaintiffs thing
amazing
wait so can Kimmel sue and be a valid plaintiff and resolve this question in 4+ years?
ulyssessword
3hr ago
The quote above is the pre-amble for the actual "joke"
How is it connected? I watched the clip until he started talking about the Emmys, and didn't notice anything that built off of that supposed setup. Let's go line-by-line:
- We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang Completely generic
- desperately trying to characterize (see below)
- this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk Yup, that's the topic.
- as anything other than one of them (continued from above) Never mentioned, referred to, reflected on, or used in any way. Not by Trump or by anyone else.
- and doing everything they can to score political points from it No, Trump was deflecting instead of focusing on it. Kimmel didn't focus on the contrast between his (unsupported) claim and Trumps statements or do anything else with the mismatch. Trump was even in "major change the subject mode". MTG did a bit, but that's all that was covered.
How is "desperately trying to characterize [him] as anything other than one of them" supposed to be the preamble for a joke? Did I simply stop watching too soon?
Roseanne clarifies -- she claims that the Obamas directly pressured the studio to fire her:
Remember when you and your wife called Bob Iger to have me fired?
Further, she has claimed in the past that she was tweeting about Valerie Jarrett in the context of criticising the Obama admin's Iran deal which she knew Jarrett was associated with. She now seems to making a harder claim that the Iran deal part was significant to her firing:
Because they aren’t the same. I wasn’t fired for lying I was fired for telling the truth about the Iran deal and slandered into oblivion. This will still be worse for our side than theirs. Kimmel will get an entire PR tour to clear his name with the backing of all media.
I don't personally find that very easy to believe, though I don't discount it 100%. The 1st claim I don't know, but it is not helped by the 2nd.
(it's also possible she's just extending the chain of causation back one step to reflect her subjective experience and does not really intend to be making a claim about the motive?)
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
3hr ago
6.6 million is 2% of 330 million. 5% of 330 million is 16.5 million.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
3hr ago
You can frame it that way if you wish. The problem is that it doesn't seem like many people in the wider culture are buying it. The ultimate test for any of the claims or perspectives we offer here are subsequent events: I am confident that framing this as "Kirk unleashed the inner That's Not Funny" is not going to turn the tide.
Time will tell.
Quantumfreakonomics
4hr ago
But if they're state-run, people won't notice if they're losing money! Medicare/medicaid are massive money pits, and yet Trump became dominant not despite but because of his comittment to not cutting them.
Mantergeistmann
4hr ago
I thought Eagles fans reserved that treatment for Santa Claus.
aqouta
4hr ago
Ah I see, then @FirmWeird, no I just read almost every post
aqouta
4hr ago
I think the equilibrium would be found where the things being said by the populist side would be so obviously stupid and ruinous that even the median voting American would be like "uh, I dunno, all the state run raw milk distribution centers are losing money, do we really want to nationalize coffee shops?"
Sloot
4hr ago
At one point a coworker cornered me before a 3 hour long meeting, and tried to make me talk about how I was doing.
Nosy or intrusive coworkers are a special rung of hell.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
4hr ago
I am not a moderator.
He may be referring to the volunteer comment-rating system that offers normal commenters to give their opinion on comments selected by automatic metrics.
aqouta
4hr ago
Have you been reading the thread or did you just come in midway because you got asked to moderate a post?
I am not a moderator.
This conversation was taking place in a hypothetical future where Israel is cut off from international trade and aid due to their genocide of the Palestinians - there wouldn't be any Gazans left to celebrate. We're discussing a worst case scenario, because my original point was that committing acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing is a terrible idea for Israel because it doesn't have the geography or natural resources in order to survive a future where it has lost the support of the US and other western allies.
Oh, I had not realized you meant genocide for real and not the way it's usually used in relation to Israel to describe a situation where populations don't actually ever decrease. This is often the problem with this expansion of terms. Although this is confusing because before you've alluded to Israel still being at war with some entity as their military protectionism being cut off was stated as some important thing. Is the west bank still in its current formation after this or are we imagining every Palestinian was genocided? Because it doesn't really seem lie any of Israel's other neighbors are exactly excited to get into a conflict with her. Are we proposing that like Arabs are blood lusted for the destruction of Israel like in those threads on super hero power scaling?
Frothing genocide? I'm not proposing any kind of genocide at all - I'm saying that Israel would fall apart if it became a pariah state, which is very different.
You're proposing the rest of the world commit a genocide by your own definition of blockading food imports. Or do you think what Israel is accused of doing doesn't count?
Moreover, as mentioned previously, a lot of the Israelis would simply just leave because grinding poverty in the desert is not a particularly tempting option when you have a passport that will take you to the first world
Up to half, almost certainly much fewer, could leave to the EU, although it's a weird kind of pariah state that you'd blockade food imports to but issue their citizens citizenship. but why would anyone accept refugees from this pariah state?
Also, you seem remarkably hostile here - I'm not trying to score points, but it seems like you're getting unreasonably angry about this topic.
I'm not angry really. Maybe I've misread you but this all pattern matches to a frustrating trope of implying that those jews should just fuck back off to Europe which is a microcosm of a kind of third worldist flavored grievance politic that I find incredibly distasteful. Wakanda wish casting.
anti_dan
4hr ago
Perhaps if your intent is to remain ignorant of how the Nazi's formed a winning coalition, but if you are interested in such things the genocide is more of an afterthought. Its obviously the most important thing when talking about their impact on world history, but when discussing domestic politics and drawing comparisons between the politics of various regimes it is very unimportant.
Quantumfreakonomics
4hr ago
Nybbler already pointed out that riots are pretty rare in the USA, so I am assuming that you are not American.
It wasn't the riots themselves, it was how the media -- not just the news media, but sports media, entertainment media, and social media too -- reacted. Everyone lost their minds. Those of us who had even a passing familiarity with the actual events got to see how the consent-manufacturing sausage was made.
On a practical level biker gangs, like many gangs, actually exist less from the financial angle (though that helps) but from (often violent but not always) kids from broken families getting caught up in a group that fills most of the needs a family would normally fill. Brotherhood, purpose, importance, outlets for anger, structure, exhilaration at breaking the rules, all that. It's a fake family in the ways that count, of course, but much like pets filling child-sized holes, it works pretty well overall - that's why it exists.
I agree the GHF seems to exist also to fill a need. The need here is someone else to take blame and occasionally do gruntwork. Yes, useful stooges, though Israel isn't the only one who likes a GHF-like entity so I would be cautious in assuming Israel is the only one propping them up. I wouldn't be surprised even if some enemies of Israel also support them for some reason or another.
I'm pretty sure the GHF has been hollowed out as the more legit people have left. I remember hearing I think this story a month and a half ago where you can start to see not only some pretty outright deception by some level of GHF leadership but also the more good guys get disillusioned and leave, with more callous people left. I should pause here and note that the job given to them is actually terrible. Holding mobs at bay while distributing food is genuinely dangerous. But unlike the military, it appears that there are effectively very few actual rules of engagement. Personally, again, I feel like this is the point, GHF again is there to take the blame and do the dirty work when it's convenient for them to do so. I think the violence exists, probably not massacre level, but people are definitely being killed when seeking aid for bad reasons. The scale is unclear. Personally I think it's bigger than you think, but it's not a great news environment to say the least.
Back to the point you make, I think it's something like a bunch of people go over and those with a conscience often go back soon, or fall into the morally compromised soldier position that happens in basically every war. So it works as a distillery for the cruel or callous. It's absolutely a shit job that few want to do. There are only so many places you can find semi-lawless violence-prone people in need of a job in America. The cartels certainly aren't going to let their people go and do it. So biker gangs is actually a great and logical fit and that surprises me precisely not at all. The other group would be financially distressed former soldiers of course, but motivation to go to yet another war-torn middle eastern country with a hostile local population has got to be... well... yeah, relatively low, though I imagine nonetheless they still fill out a good portion of the manpower.
Now again as I will say every time when it comes to Israel: Israel should be the one taking on all of this themselves. They directly created this cratered, destroyed, lawless zone with arbitrary and changing rules for civilians and a crippling need to import virtually all of its food, and need to take responsibility for it - direct responsibility for it. They don't probably because they have a borderline genocidal apathy towards gazans. I'm sympathetic, really I am, but apathy isn't a full moral cover.
More options
Context Copy link