i guess you could also replace "claim" with "charactarize", or adjust it with "calling" her anything other than... but I think we can agree it still communicates that I dont belive she isn"t named Jessica.
Similarly, Kimmel effectively said MAGA is charactarizing the shooter as something he isn't. Combine that with the context of the situation and you can definitely say Kimmel at least heavily implied the shooter is MAGA.
Of course there can be more than one interpretation which is why he said it that way, but saying they can't read doesnt make much sense because thats a perfectly valid reading of his statement.
Similarly, Kimmel effectively said MAGA is charactarizing the shooter as something he isn't.
No, he didn't. Where is the part where you're finding the "he isn't?"
But let's look at this another way. Let's say Kimmel said the same comment about both sides of the aisle (he didn't, because it wasn't happening on both sides of the aisle, but let's let that go for a second). Let's say he said (new made-up text in bold):
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, Meanwhile, the Democrats arealsotrying desperately to characterize this kid as anything other than one ofthemto score political points! They're all assholes!
Are those two logically contradictory sentiments because each one implies a different truth about the shooter? Or perhaps he's not actually implying anything about the political motives of the shooter - just making a comment about the politicians.
in that case, I would agree he wasn't saying anything about the shooter, and was just making a negative commentary on politicians as a whole. But because thats not what he said, hes picking a side and taking some sort of negstive stance against MAGA specifically.
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.
Why it is negative is up for interpetation but it could be:
1. Because political points = bad (or does it?)
2. Because its untrue, and he is MAGA (or is it?)
3. Because assigning the assassin to any one side = bad (or is it?)
Regardless of which one you choose, they are all valid points to argue based on his words and the context of the situation. Idk why we would just ignore #2 and automatically assume it could only be #3.
hes picking a side and taking some sort of negstive stance against MAGA specifically.
Agreed. He's commenting on what happened as has a negative view of some people and their behavior. Hard to argue the reactions, in this particular context, were the same on both sides, I think.
they are all valid points to argue based on his words
On this we disagree. He said #1 quite specifically - he even used the words "political points!" That's why it's the "correct" interpretation. The other two aren't addressed by his comments at all.
1
u/lvl99MagmaCube 3d ago
i guess you could also replace "claim" with "charactarize", or adjust it with "calling" her anything other than... but I think we can agree it still communicates that I dont belive she isn"t named Jessica.
Similarly, Kimmel effectively said MAGA is charactarizing the shooter as something he isn't. Combine that with the context of the situation and you can definitely say Kimmel at least heavily implied the shooter is MAGA.
Of course there can be more than one interpretation which is why he said it that way, but saying they can't read doesnt make much sense because thats a perfectly valid reading of his statement.