OT: Kimmel v. Rodgers

[DuckIII]

Does anyone have a link to the actual original "accusation" by Rodgers? Hard to find with so many people doing analysis videos of it, and the follow up segment.

From what I've gathered so far it's hilarious that anyone is treating this as a serious or contentious thing for either party. Nothingburger of the year so far, though we have over 11 months left.

Here is what he said:

"There's a lot of people, including Jimmy Kimmel, that are really hoping that doesn't come out," Rodgers said on the show. "If that list comes out, I definitely will be popping some sort of bottle," he added.

And then Kimmel addressed it properly by defending himself, Rogers backed off wisely, and now it’s over.

[League Circles]

Jimmy blowhard Kimmel can certainly dish it but can’t take it. What a cuck. He is many things but probably not a comedian

He’s also probably not a child sex trafficker and rapist. Which is probably why he stood up for himself with nothing more than a simple “cease and desist” comment to make it stop. Which is also why it worked as Rogers immediately tucked his tail and ESPN took his microphone.

I have never watched Jimmy Kimmel in my life. But the responses in this thread suggesting that a comedian should not defend himself from the deliberate suggestion that he is the lowest form of human filth you can be, are absolutely ridiculous and show some sort of bizarrely extreme bias.

If it's really as simple as this being indeed the deliberate suggestion, why are most of the people actually confirmed as on the "list" not defending themselves?

I would contend that there are several layers of nuance that makes the comment far from the lowest form of human filth you can be:

1. Rodgers originally comment may have been largely retaliatory with regards to past digs by Kimmel at him
2. May have been largely a joke
3. May have referred primarily to Kimmels apparent prior scoffing at the notion of the existence of a list
4. May have referred to the circles Kimmel walks in (hollywood friends/names)
5. The list, I think, is largely flight log lists to/from the island, which is very far from the lowest form of human scum, and in many cases may be entirely innocent
6. Even list members who may have engaged in sex with minors may have done so with relative plausible innocence (not known of minor status)
7. Even those who knowingly had sex with minors, while acting abhorrently, are certain not as low as those who, among many possible examples, have forced sex with minors, commit mass murder, etc.

This is why I see this as such a non story. Though I get why Kimmel got defensive. He's a very public person and can't risk his rep being accidentally or intentionally blemished, plus he's a huge dumbass so I wouldn't expect him to be able to deal with it with the smoothness of some of his greater contemporaries.

[Mbrahv0528]

someone's spending too much time (as in any) on alt-right websites

Keep that beta energy, doesn’t have anything to do with polictics. Someone spends to much time on alt leftist websites

This response kind of just reinforces what dice said.

Lmfao right? But self awareness has never been a strong suit of the alt-right. Goodness gracious.

Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

[dice]

Jimmy blowhard Kimmel can certainly dish it but can’t take it. What a cuck. He is many things but probably not a comedian

He’s also probably not a child sex trafficker and rapist. Which is probably why he stood up for himself with nothing more than a simple “cease and desist” comment to make it stop. Which is also why it worked as Rogers immediately tucked his tail and ESPN took his microphone.

I have never watched Jimmy Kimmel in my life. But the responses in this thread suggesting that a comedian should not defend himself from the deliberate suggestion that he is the lowest form of human filth you can be, are absolutely ridiculous and show some sort of bizarrely extreme bias.

If it's really as simple as this being indeed the deliberate suggestion, why are most of the people actually confirmed as on the "list" not defending themselves?

I would contend that there are several layers of nuance that makes the comment far from the lowest form of human filth you can be:

1. Rodgers originally comment may have been largely retaliatory with regards to past digs by Kimmel at him
2. May have been largely a joke
3. May have referred primarily to Kimmels apparent prior scoffing at the notion of the existence of a list
4. May have referred to the circles Kimmel walks in (hollywood friends/names)
5. The list, I think, is largely flight log lists to/from the island, which is very far from the lowest form of human scum, and in many cases may be entirely innocent
6. Even list members who may have engaged in sex with minors may have done so with relative plausible innocence (not known of minor status)
7. Even those who knowingly had sex with minors, while acting abhorrently, are certain not as low as those who, among many possible examples, have forced sex with minors, commit mass murder, etc.

This is why I see this as such a non story. Though I get why Kimmel got defensive. He's a very public person and can't risk his rep being accidentally or intentionally blemished, plus he's a huge dumbass so I wouldn't expect him to be able to deal with it with the smoothness of some of his greater contemporaries.

1) kimmel is hardly a dumbass
2) it's a story presumably because his family started getting aggressively inappropriate attention from the kind of ilk that supports rodgers's hairbrained worldview

[dice]

Jimmy blowhard Kimmel can certainly dish it but can’t take it. What a cuck. He is many things but probably not a comedian

someone's spending too much time (as in any) on alt-right websites

Keep that beta energy, doesn’t have anything to do with polictics.

it does whether you realize it or not:

https://www.gq.com/story/why-angry-white-men-love-calling-people-cucks

and it's become so pervasive and insidious in certain circles that people under its grip go so far as to suggest, for random example, that a man defending his family against false claims somehow qualifies as a "cuck"

Someone spends to much time on alt leftist websites

i also despise the "alt-left"...to the extent that there is such a thing

i hope you are able to find your way out

[SalmonsSuperfan]

I have never watched Jimmy Kimmel in my life. But the responses in this thread suggesting that a comedian should not defend himself from the deliberate suggestion that he is the lowest form of human filth you can be, are absolutely ridiculous and show some sort of bizarrely extreme bias.

he can defend himself without threatening legal action. what a wimpy attitude, I thought comedians were supposed to like freedom of speech (and possibly even have a thick skin) instead of using their highly-paid legal team to control what comes out of other people's mouths. that Johnny Depp case will do untold damage to American society, the thought police exists and it only exists to serve rich bozos like Kimmel.

[dice]

I have never watched Jimmy Kimmel in my life. But the responses in this thread suggesting that a comedian should not defend himself from the deliberate suggestion that he is the lowest form of human filth you can be, are absolutely ridiculous and show some sort of bizarrely extreme bias.

he can defend himself without threatening legal action. what a wimpy attitude, I thought comedians were supposed to like freedom of speech (and possibly even have a thick skin) instead of using their highly-paid legal team to control what comes out of other people's mouths. that Johnny Depp case will do untold damage to American society, the thought police exists and it only exists to serve rich bozos like Kimmel.

comedians like freedom of speech as opposed to political correctness. that concept has nothing to do with defamatory remarks or slander. and nobody said anything about somehow involving the police

[SalmonsSuperfan]

I have never watched Jimmy Kimmel in my life. But the responses in this thread suggesting that a comedian should not defend himself from the deliberate suggestion that he is the lowest form of human filth you can be, are absolutely ridiculous and show some sort of bizarrely extreme bias.

he can defend himself without threatening legal action. what a wimpy attitude, I thought comedians were supposed to like freedom of speech (and possibly even have a thick skin) instead of using their highly-paid legal team to control what comes out of other people's mouths. that Johnny Depp case will do untold damage to American society, the thought police exists and it only exists to serve rich bozos like Kimmel.

comedians like freedom of speech as opposed to political correctness. that concept has nothing to do with defamatory remarks or slander. and nobody said anything about somehow involving the police

well, I brought up the thought police not the real police. the thought police isn't a real entity, but rich and famous people think the legal system exists to punish people who say mean things about them. that feels like the antithesis of the personal freedoms we enjoy here in America, everyone is entitled to their moronic opinions, but it feels like we're in the midst of an erosion of these liberties, ever since 9/11, but more recently about what we are allowed and not allowed to say. I think it's scary when this culture carries over into the legal system which is why I mentioned Depp. The real loser of that case is the freedom of the press, and a legal system where juries make decisions based on what they think about the two parties rather than the facts and evidence. it's amusing to me that Depp lost his case in the UK, a country where 'libel' and 'defamation' cases are much more common and tend to favor the plaintiff, but won in America, ostensibly because the case was heard in front of a judge in the UK and a jury in the USA, and the jury was manipulated by attacks on Heard's character and social media. It was a fraudulent trial but sets a pretty scary precedent about what people can write about and what newspapers can publish. it's an erosion of the freedom of the press.

these things like libel and defamation are indeed at odds with the first amendment, the best thing about this country as far as I'm concerned. typically, it's not easy to win a defamation case in this country but that seems to be changing so long as the plaintiff can put the case in front of a jury and win by attacking the defendant's character. this is the thought police I speak of that seems to be becoming enshrined in law. Kimmel wouldn't even have a case against Rodgers, nothing he actually said qualifies as defamation. this gets back to why I think Kimmel is a loser. why wouldn't he just roast Rodgers on his TV show? there are a ton of great jokes he could make about that buffoon and probably hurt him if he really wanted to do that. why not having a running bit that mocks him instead of whining about "I'm gonna call my lawyer on you!!" he should be a comedian and have a thicker skin.

off topic, but this post got me thinking about it: that decision Colorado made to keep Trump off the ballot is another perversion of the justice system and we have to hope that gets overturned by the Supreme Court. Those elected judges (fake judges) cited the amendment created after the Civil War to keep Southern traitors out of the government. The fact that they liken Trump to Jefferson Davis is absurd especially considering he's never been convicted of "insurrection". I think it's pathetic that they would compare January 1st to the most devastating war in American history where good men fought and died so that every man could be free. It's clearly politically motivated and has nothing to do with an accurate interpretation of the Constitution, it also sets a dangerous, anti-democratic precedent that people in power will use to punish their political opponents...maybe it could qualify as insurrection to organize a labor strike, it's not like you have to be convicted of insurrection, you just have to get people to believe it. I worry more about the Republican-controlled states on this matter than Democrat ones.

[DuckIII]

I have never watched Jimmy Kimmel in my life. But the responses in this thread suggesting that a comedian should not defend himself from the deliberate suggestion that he is the lowest form of human filth you can be, are absolutely ridiculous and show some sort of bizarrely extreme bias.

he can defend himself without threatening legal action. what a wimpy attitude, I thought comedians were supposed to like freedom of speech (and possibly even have a thick skin) instead of using their highly-paid legal team to control what comes out of other people's mouths. that Johnny Depp case will do untold damage to American society, the thought police exists and it only exists to serve rich bozos like Kimmel.

Thought police huh? Okay fella.

[SalmonsSuperfan]

I have never watched Jimmy Kimmel in my life. But the responses in this thread suggesting that a comedian should not defend himself from the deliberate suggestion that he is the lowest form of human filth you can be, are absolutely ridiculous and show some sort of bizarrely extreme bias.

he can defend himself without threatening legal action. what a wimpy attitude, I thought comedians were supposed to like freedom of speech (and possibly even have a thick skin) instead of using their highly-paid legal team to control what comes out of other people's mouths. that Johnny Depp case will do untold damage to American society, the thought police exists and it only exists to serve rich bozos like Kimmel.

Thought police huh? Okay fella.

suing people for saying mean things that don't even come close to meeting the threshold for defamation? yes, fella, it's quite literally using the justice system to control what people say. of course, I don't feel sorry for Aaron Rodgers, but I feel bad for journalists or whoever else that might criticize powerful people and would lose solely because they can't afford legal fees like these powerful dicks can or aren't popular enough to influence the jury. I worry about precedents being set that are the complete antithesis of the first amendment.
my question is, why do you not care?

[dice]

he can defend himself without threatening legal action. what a wimpy attitude, I thought comedians were supposed to like freedom of speech (and possibly even have a thick skin) instead of using their highly-paid legal team to control what comes out of other people's mouths. that Johnny Depp case will do untold damage to American society, the thought police exists and it only exists to serve rich bozos like Kimmel.

comedians like freedom of speech as opposed to political correctness. that concept has nothing to do with defamatory remarks or slander. and nobody said anything about somehow involving the police

well, I brought up the thought police not the real police. the thought police isn't a real entity, but rich and famous people think the legal system exists to punish people who say mean things about them. that feels like the antithesis of the personal freedoms we enjoy here in America, everyone is entitled to their moronic opinions, but it feels like we're in the midst of an erosion of these liberties, ever since 9/11, but more recently about what we are allowed and not allowed to say. I think it's scary when this culture carries over into the legal system which is why I mentioned Depp. The real loser of that case is the freedom of the press, and a legal system where juries make decisions based on what they think about the two parties rather than the facts and evidence. it's amusing to me that Depp lost his case in the UK, a country where 'libel' and 'defamation' cases are much more common and tend to favor the plaintiff, but won in America, ostensibly because the case was heard in front of a judge in the UK and a jury in the USA, and the jury was manipulated by attacks on Heard's character and social media. It was a fraudulent trial but sets a pretty scary precedent about what people can write about and what newspapers can publish. it's an erosion of the freedom of the press.

these things like libel and defamation are indeed at odds with the first amendment, the best thing about this country as far as I'm concerned. typically, it's not easy to win a defamation case in this country but that seems to be changing so long as the plaintiff can put the case in front of a jury and win by attacking the defendant's character. this is the thought police I speak of that seems to be becoming enshrined in law. Kimmel wouldn't even have a case against Rodgers, nothing he actually said qualifies as defamation. this gets back to why I think Kimmel is a loser. why wouldn't he just roast Rodgers on his TV show? there are a ton of great jokes he could make about that buffoon and probably hurt him if he really wanted to do that. why not having a running bit that mocks him instead of whining about "I'm gonna call my lawyer on you!!" he should be a comedian and have a thicker skin.

whatever it lacks in legal merit, it sure did shut up rodgers and have mcafee and the network running scared. did you consider that maybe that was the point? certainly got the job done faster than a bunch of jokes, which, by the way, kimmel has been targeting rodgers with for years. didn't prevent what happened

off topic, but this post got me thinking about it: that decision Colorado made to keep Trump off the ballot is another perversion of the justice system and we have to hope that gets overturned by the Supreme Court. Those elected judges (fake judges) cited the amendment created after the Civil War to keep Southern traitors out of the government. The fact that they liken Trump to Jefferson Davis is absurd especially considering he's never been convicted of "insurrection". I think it's pathetic that they would compare January 1st to the most devastating war in American history where good men fought and died so that every man could be free.

trump's mob was trying to kill his vice president and political enemies. many of them, anyway. ALL were attempting to overturn an election. that's pretty damn important ****. even almost every elected rep. of the birther party understood that in the aftermath

It's clearly politically motivated and has nothing to do with an accurate interpretation of the Constitution

an accurate interpretation of the constitution does not take into account why it was implemented at the time. it takes into account only the words as they are written. amendments are permanent until overturned. they do not sunset when the original objective has been met. there is no minimum threshold for insurrection put forth, whether that be body count, formal state secession or anything else. that the insurrection fortunately failed spectacularly is irrelevant. but without severe consequences the next time we might not be so lucky

as for political motivation, it is clear and obvious that there is no political gain for democrats to get trump disqualified in states where he has little chance of winning to begin with. if anything, it works to their political DISadvantage due to public perception. which your perspective is an example of

it also sets a dangerous, anti-democratic precedent that people in power will use to punish their political opponents

it could. but the birther party, as evidenced by the actions of its members and supporters over the past several years, has little interest in precedent anyway. they had no interest in precedent when they refused to consider an obama supreme court nominee for a variety of specious reasons. they had no interest in precedent when they then turned around after trump was elected and eliminated 60 vote threshold for supreme court nominees. the current supreme court has little interest in precedent (an institution that is supposed to be interested in precedent more than any other!). and they certainly had no interest in precedent when they did everything they could to nix biden's obviously legit election win...including inciting the events of jan. 6

in short, the birthers are ALREADY doing everything in their power to gain and retain power, regardless of the way things have been done in the past

[MAQ]

The turn this thread took... I'm scared for my future.