Now Jimmy Kimmel is cancelled — Page 5

delete

The list of ridiculous demands they want from Jimmy is straight up extortion, even though he did nothing wrong. Plain and simple. He will never give money to causes that actively f*ck with anyone who is not White Straight Christian or Male. I hope he finds success elsewhere.

Extortion

Updated On: 9/19/25 at 11:54 AM

ABC Has No Good Options in Resolving the Jimmy Kimmel Crisis

https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/abc-no-good-options-jimmy-kimmel-crisis-1236524314/

Will 'Jimmy Kimmel Live' Keep Upcoming Scheduled Run in Brooklyn?

https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-news/jimmy-kimmel-cancellation-brooklyn-shows-1235430949/

WiCkEDrOcKS said: "Jay Lerner-Z said: "Seb, are you a bot?"

Sadly I don’t think so. Even a bot has more logic, empathy, and sound reasoning."

What we were discussing here is the fact that you can't suddenly hypocritically scream that people "are being silenced" when someone is being taught a lesson for spreading ugly lies about someone who has actually been slaughtered for his words.

Because that is the opposite of logic, empathy and sound reasoning. Do you understand that? You might not like being confronted with these facts, but there is no need for name-calling, head in the sand sticking and gathering a gang to try and eliminate or block me, as if you are Gaston in the mob song in Beauty and the Beast.

Sutton Ross said: "The people who hate cancel culture just canceled Jimmy Kimmel. Irony writes itself."

Slaughtering someone because of his words is canceling. Teaching someone a lesson about this problem is not. Moreover, the latter is saving lives. This is beyond irony.

Matt Rogers said: "Pathetic! idiot! troll!"

Thank you. You know that's against the rules?

blug said: "Just cancelled my Hulu and Disney+.

It's super easy."

Ok, have fun. What were your actions after the more severe canceling of a person last week?

MB124 said: "Why or how they haven’t been banned yet is absolutely baffling."

You having no clue about neither social rules in general nor the rules of this board is absolutely baffling. There are plenty of others on here that you should go after and report if you had a clue.

Sutton Ross said: "The list of ridiculous demands they want from Jimmy is straight up extortion, even though he did nothing wrong. Plain and simple."

He deliberately told a disgusting lie to millions of people. Trying to bend the facts so the public would see the side of the victim as the side of the perpetrator and vice versa. That is wrong. Plain and simple.

"The President deliberately lies daily."

As does every POTUS with the exception of Lincoln (honest Abe) -lol.

Updated On: 9/19/25 at 10:38 PM

Zeppie2022 said: ""The President deliberately lies daily."

As does every POTUS with the exception of Lincoln (honest Abe)-lol."

The volume and magnitude of Trump’s lies leave every past president in the dust.

binau said: "Jimmy Kimmel should not be cancelled - and thank god Ted Cruz is showing some sense in his reaction and criticism to this. However, I don't understand how you can suggest there was nothing untruthful about the quote. The quote is implying that the ideological motivations are right-wing ('one of their own', when the current evidence, note from the shooter and statements from Utah Governor/law enforcement clearly suggest this is left-wing ideological (which would contradict with Kimmel's statement) - based on the evidence of what he was actually thinking and why he pulled the trigger not his family or upbringing, which can but not does not necessarily reflect what one's ideological beliefs are.

There is a bit of conspiracy about whether the evidence is actually real or fabricated, and that is a discussion that can be had. But if the evidence is true it's not ambiguous and it contradicts Jimmy Kimmel's quote."

Kimmel’s quote is making a broader observation about political groups exploiting the tragedy for their own gain, not necessarily commenting on the shooter’s precise motivations or ideological identity.

The focus of Kimmel’s remark is on how political factions—specifically the MAGA crowd—are attempting to mold the narrative around the shooter to fit their own agenda. That’s a criticism about how events are being used for political leverage, not about the shooter’s ideological leanings or what was in their mind when they committed the act.

You’re right in pointing out that a person’s upbringing or family background doesn’t always align with their ideological beliefs or actions. But I didn’t take the quote as an implication that the shooter shares the ideological views of the MAGA movement—it’s more about the MAGA movement’s efforts to detach themselves from the shooter right off the bat, without much evidence. The fact that Kimmel used the phrase "one of their own" is, in this context, not a comment on the shooter’s political stance, but a way to critique the political narrative being spun post-tragedy.

If we’re going to analyze the shooter’s motivations accurately, we of course need to look at all the available evidence, including their manifestos, statements, or other documented reasons for their actions. But we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that Kimmel’s quote is about the political exploitation of the shooter, not a direct claim about the shooter’s personal ideology. So, I don’t think Kimmel's quote is untruthful based on the available evidence—it’s more of a critique about the political rhetoric surrounding the event, which is a separate issue.

Updated On: 9/20/25 at 06:28 AM

I think we’re largely in agreement about the tragedy being used for political gain, and I see your point about Kimmel’s quote, but I think it’s worth unpacking a bit more.

You’re right in saying that Kimmel’s choice of words—“desperately trying to characterize this kid... as anything other than one of them”—can be interpreted as implying that the shooter was, or could be, ideologically linked to the MAGA movement. I’ll admit, the phrasing can be viewed as a bit charged, and I get why it could be taken to imply that the shooter was MAGA or, at least, that there's a suspicion about that link.

But I still think there’s a subtle but important distinction here. When Kimmel uses “desperately,” I believe he’s critiquing the MAGA movement’s immediate attempt to distance themselves from the shooter, before any concrete evidence comes out. This feels more like a comment on the politics of blame and identity, not necessarily a definitive statement about the shooter’s ideology. It’s about how a narrative is being constructed in the aftermath of a tragedy, where political sides rush to frame things for their advantage.

I also get your point about the shooter’s profile not aligning with a MAGA ideology—especially given the ideological symbols, like the anti-fascist lyrics, the stance against Charlie Kirk, and the relationship dynamics. You’re absolutely right: a shooter who holds those beliefs doesn’t fit neatly into the MAGA camp, and it’s reasonable to say that these details suggest a different ideological background.

The challenge here, though, is that political groups often aren’t interested in nuance when there’s an opportunity to score points. So, in that context, I think Kimmel is pointing out the absurdity of immediately trying to make the shooter into something that fits the MAGA narrative. That’s why I think Kimmel’s comment is more about the political narrative than an ideological claim about the shooter.

This issue is obviously complex, and you can hold both ideas: political exploitation and a critique of the shooter's actual motivations. It’s a layered situation, and we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that the narrative is being manipulated while also trying to understand the deeper truths about the shooter’s personal beliefs and actions.

At the end of the day, everyone is trying to make sense of the messy intersection between tragedy, politics, and ideology.

I think the real issue is that the political spin often overshadows genuine efforts to understand the root causes of these acts. And that’s what I believe Kimmel was getting at.

Thank you for being a reasonable human, binau. Some others (read: other, singular) should take notes.

"The volume and magnitude of Trump’s lies leave every past president in the dust. "

Betcha Nixon told more lies -lmao.

abcd12 said: "You’re right in saying that Kimmel’s choice of words—“desperately trying to characterize this kid... as anything other than one of them”—can be interpreted as implying that the shooter was, or could be, ideologically linked to the MAGA movement. I’ll admit, the phrasing can be viewed asa bit charged, and I get why it could be taken to imply that the shooterwasMAGA or, at least, that there's a suspicion about that link.

But I still think there’s a subtle but important distinction here. When Kimmel uses “desperately,” I believe he’s critiquing the MAGA movement’s immediate attempt to distance themselves from the shooter,before any concrete evidence comes out. "

In any case, everything that has come out (the trans-related bullet inscriptions, the background of the shooter, his letter, his emails, his testemonies, friends and family's testemonies, his partner, his memberships, his posts on online platforms, etc) points towards being anything but one of them.

So to state the complete opposite, only to try and make people believe that his (Kimmel's) enemies are "desperately" trying to characterize this kid as anything other than one of them, is not just far fetched, wrong and untrue, but also totally evil. Why on earth would someone say that when literally everything points into the opposite direction. That means total disregard for the truth and having a cunning agenda, to deliberately put a certain group in a bad light for millions of people. Also, the Maga side is only mentioning things that the authorities have presented and what is actually found on the bullets and in the emails, etc. That is by no means "desperately trying to characterize someone", and therefore nobody of good faith could describe it that way.

MB124 said: "Most of the people on this board want you gone. Imagine repeatedly showing up to an event or gathering that the vast majority of attendees don’t want you at…? Go somewhere else."

I know, that's how your type rolls. But I have news for you, it does not work with me. I couldn't care less whether someone without character takes on a welcoming attitude towards me or not. This elimination urge will never be a solution to anything in life. You will always stay unsatisfied.

Updated On: 9/23/25 at 07:54 PM

Seb28 said: "That means total disregard for the truth and having a cunning agenda, to deliberately put a certain group in a bad light for millions of people."

MAGA freaks have done a fiiiiiiine job of putting themselves “in a bad light” all on their own for the last decade.

Calling someone else “unsatisfied” is hysterical. There’s only one person who comes across as unsatisfied on this thread, dear.

You’re never going to agree with me and vice versa, so let’s just give the back and forth a f*cking rest. I’m not responding to you anymore, regardless. You’re right, I’m wrong. Does that make you feel better?