In the controversy about Carr and Kimmel, these distinctions are too often overlooked:

(1) Governmental action to restrict speech vs private action to restrict speech.

(2) Speech that does not use public airwaves and speech that does use public airwaves.

Often, both the Left and the Right strenuously attempt to distance themselves from political assailants. So it's hardly notable that many on the Right strenuously and (if the suspect is indeed the shooter) correctly denied that the alleged shooter was from the Right. So Kimmel's comment was pretty much pointless. Basically true, but pointless. Unless the intent was to sneakily influence people to think that the alleged shooter is not indeed Left leaning:

It is sneaky, dishonest argument from many on the Left to conflate the alleged shooter's own views with those he was raised with, as perhaps we were supposed to glean from Kimmel's comment that the alleged shooter was at root from the Right. The alleged shooter was, it seems, raised in a Right leaning family but he himself, it seems, leans Left. The fact that he was raised in a Right leaning family doesn't cancel that he himself leans Left. Indeed, reversing Kimmel's own point, some on the Left will do anything they can to make it seem that the alleged shooter is not Left leaning.

And Kimmel's comment was not comedy or even humour. There was no punchline or even irony to it. (The comedy was only in the next paragraph in which Kimmel pointed out that Trump, without a trace of self-awareness, segued his answer about grief over Kirk by pointing out how nicely the new White House construction is coming along.) I don't always mind a comedian getting serious during an act, but I am annoyed when comedians claim that their act, even including the non-comedic parts, should have a dispensation from responsiblity for its content just because it's "just a joke".

But it is ludicrous pearl clutching to claim that what Kimmel said disrespected Kirk or is even remotely in the same universe as "hate speech" (oh come on!). Much of the Right seized on the assassination to try to put the kibosh on virtually any criticism of Kirk by claiming it is "hate speech". That's so ridiculous. It was claimed that the Left and Democrats (virtually always, the claims are couched as if there is a monolithic The Left and The Democrats) were celebrating Kirk's death, as if, en bloc, the Left and Democrats were doing any such thing. Who, other than some crackpots on Internet forums and, as rare exceptions, a TV commentor or two, said anything that could remotely be construed as celebration of Kirk's death? I'd like to know what Democrat in national or state office said anything that could remotely be construed as celebtration of Kirk's death. I really would like someone making the claim to give examples with exact quotes. The Right is a wily adaptive creature - turning woke right back as a cudgel against the woke and woke-friendly themselves. Well played, even if crudely and transparently dishonest.

And Vance and Trump, for example, look ridiculous faulting the Left for claiming that Kirk's commentary included vile ideas, when we consider that Vance and Trump propogated the unconscionable lie - endangering local immigrants (legal) in that Ohio town - that immigrants were eating stolen pets, and even as, when it was made clear to Vance that the claim was a canard, he said it's okay for him still to advance it if it is effective in highlighting that immigration is a problem. Seriously, from a candidate for vice president?!

On the other hand, many on the Left are liable to do similarly if the situation is reversed. Thus the mindless, interminable tu quoque loop. Right and Left are both hypocritical and each is hypocritical for saying the other is hypocritical, ad infinitum ...

And especially ridiculously disingenuous and hypocritcal is the argument that Kimmel or anyone should be restricted from the airwaves on account of making untrue claims. First, as mentioned, the claim was, at face value, basically true (even if underneath it was suggesting an untruth). But more importantly, the airwaves are flooded with falsehoods and lies. Falsehoods and lies are the proverbial water we fish swim in. The President of the United States is himself the apex predator liar of those waters. And then all the way down to the most pathetic radio talk show host at the smallest, most hapless radio station in the smallest, most pitiable radio market in the U.S. If we censored the airwaves on the basis of truth, we'd have dead air across the dials and the proverbial after hours TV test pattern around the clock.

Meanwhile, what a juvenile mind the President of the United States has. He harped about Kimmel's ratings and the El Presidente's estimation of Kimmel's talent. As if that adds to the case for kicking Kimmel off the airwaves for speech that clearly should be protected.

But still, most crucially, the President of the United States, along with his team and many of his millions of supporters, took arguably the most salient philosophical and policy minded leap in American history across the cherished line that the government should back far away from imposition of censoring speech. And then the dishonest, hypocritical rationalizations for that.

Right vs Left and Left vs Right. It gets dramatically worse even from just one news cycle to the next. There is no hope for honest, rational national discourse.

I believe that currently Trump has a very easy way to end the Russian-Ukrainian war and ensure the victory of western democracies. He should make a public proposal to Putin on YouTube: Ukraine will voluntarily cede some territories to Russia, for example Balakliia and Izium, if Putin agrees to hold a referendum in Russia with the following points:
1) Unblocking YouTube
2) Unblocking messengers
3) Cancellation of 280 articles of the Criminal Code
4) Signing a peace treaty with Ukraine.
In the future, a 5th point could be added to these four: the return of 2013 territories to Ukraine in exchange for the lifting of sanctions against Russia. firstly, as we suppose, this point should not be declared, because in Russia there is the 280.1 article of the Criminal Code which prohibits public statements with suggestions to give somebody a Russian territory (this will prevent spreading the proposal by the Ukrainian supporters in Russia). On the other hand, the 5th point is important for calming Ukrainian patriots.
The gist of the idea is that Russia essentially consists of three peoples: an apolitical majority and two minorities - democracts and anti-democratic “vatniks”. Authoritarianism in Russia is based on widespread "sectarianism": everyone only makes friends with people who think like them. "Vatniks" talk only with other vatniks, and they believe they are the majority. If the referendum is held, most Russians will probably vote for all points, and the vatniks will experience cognitive dissonance; they will realize they are a minority, and their views will start changing. If Putin refuses to hold the referendum, the fact of the refuse will make the Russians change their views too.
The goal of this plan is to force Putin to implement democratization in Russia.

Ukraine will voluntarily cede some territories to Russia, for example Balakliia and Izium — Linkey

How about the USA cedes territory to Russia?

How about the USA cedes territory to Russia? — Michael

We could give them South Carolina.

We could give them South Carolina. — frank

As a Brit, the only states I know are California (Hollywood), New York (the city), Florida (palm trees), Texas (cowboys), Alaska (cold), and Hawaii (those flower necklace things).

We could give them South Carolina. — frank

Can you stop kidding? I am serious.
Probably Putin wouldn't perform this referendum, but the fact of his refusal will make the Russians experience a cognitive dissonance, they will start understanding that Putin lies to them.

Probably Putin wouldn't perform this referendum, but the fact of his refusal will make the Russians experience a cognitive dissonance, they will start understanding that Putin lies to them. — Linkey

They probably already know that.

They probably already know that. — frank

Not truly.
The authoritarianism in countries like Russia is supported by LIES: the rulers declare that they fulfill the will of nation, but in fact they ignore this will in critical points like freedom of speech.
Trump will be able to go further; for example, he can declare that he plans to supply Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, but he would refuse to do so, if Putin nevertheless performs this referendum. Possibly Putin will start again making his nuclear threats. For him, possibly it can be rational to choose the nuclear war instead of the referendum, because if his lies would be exposed, he will loose the power and with the power - his life. But if this becomes obvious for the Russians, they will overthrow Putin.

If someone suggested a referendum, wouldn't Putin just send them to the front in Ukraine?

< PSA >

A simulacrum curb-stomps the fat(uous) orange avatar of American imbeciliity ...

:mask:

If someone suggested a referendum, wouldn't Putin just send them to the front in Ukraine? — frank

Maybe you believe that most Russians support the Putin's war? This is not so. When they vote for Putin, they vote for "stability", not for the war.
I see that in Russia there is an apolitical majority and two minorities: those who support the war and those who are against it. The number of people who are against the war, or maybe have some unconcsious protest, can be estimated by the number of famous writers and musicians who have left Russia after the war - nearly half. Below I present some anti-Putin music videos, which give some insight how many people in Russian are against the Putin's war. Can you look at these videos?

https://youtu.be/q07dm6lPs2k
https://youtu.be/RMg0AGE11oo
https://youtu.be/l07MYf2iPr4
https://youtu.be/6vHufynMM1g

I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them. — Donald J. Trump · Jul 5, 2024

I have a meeting today with Russ Vought, he of PROJECT 2025 Fame, to determine which of the many Democrat Agencies, most of which are a political SCAM, he recommends to be cut, and whether or not those cuts will be temporary or permanent. I can’t believe the Radical Left Democrats gave me this unprecedented opportunity. They are not stupid people, so maybe this is their way of wanting to, quietly and quickly, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! President DJT — Donald J. Trump · Oct 2, 2025

I guess everyone knew. At least it's confirmed that there's a Project 2025 element in the White House. Rambling about the others as radicals and scammers will trickle down and out to his herd.

A Boston judge issues a blistering warning over free speech under Trump
^{— Axios · Oct 2, 2025}

Should Young be worried about his future now?

What the heck is wrong with that guy? Or did I miss something?

The issue before is now is very simple and clear. There is a large and growing movement of leftwing terrorism in this country. It is well organized and funded. And it is shielded by far-left Democrat judges, prosecutors and attorneys general. The only remedy is to use legitimate state power to dismantle terrorism and terror networks. — Stephen Miller · Oct 4, 2025

Another "Put up or shut up" type claim. Most reports over the past few years tell a different story. More erosion of the Trump regime's credibility; more still if no one calls him out on it. Goes along with Vance's and Trump's earlier comments, perhaps Hegseth's goings-and-doings as well. I guess we'll see what comes of it.

Murder and Extremism in the United States in 2022
^{— Anti-Defamation League · Feb 22, 2023}
Underrecognized: Extremist murders are usually from right-wing actors
^{— The Washington Post · Feb 28, 2023}
What NIJ Research Tells Us About Domestic Terrorism
^{— National Institute of Justice · Jan 4, 2024}
Is “radical-left” violence really on the rise in America?
^{— The Economist · Sep 12, 2025}
Trump Called for a Crackdown on the ‘Radical Left.’ But Right-Wing Extremists Are Responsible for More Political Violence
^{— TIME · Sep 16, 2025}
Trump administration says it will target far-left groups for Kirk's assassination. Prosecutors made no such link.
^{— NBC · Sep 17, 2025}
Right-wing extremist violence is more frequent and more deadly than left-wing violence − what the data shows
^{— The Conversation · Sep 17, 2025}

I want to add to my post about Trump and Ukraine, that currently he can implement the plan I suggested, but in future it can be too late. Currently many Russians sympathize Trump, because in the past Putin considered he as a useful ally, and both Putin and Trump dislike LGBT. But the Putin’s propaganda have started ridiculing Trump, and in future the Russians will dislike him. This happened once with Zelensky – when he became president in 2019, many Russians sympathized hi, but then the propaganda made they think he is a “addict” and “looser”. Besides that, possibly in future Putin will be able to successfully block mass media where the Russian can watch Trump’s appeal.

What the heck is wrong with that guy? — jorndoe

He's an effective propagandist - effective at telling like-minded people what they want to here. It's especially appealing to those who are still in shock at the assassination of Mister Kirk.

Your response, pointing to actual analysis that falsifies what he says, seems to me the correct one, but none of his audience would be at all interested in researching it.

The “presumption of regularity” is long-standing judicial principle that presumes government officials have acted lawfully, properly, and in good faith unless proven otherwise. It places the burden of proof on the party challenging the government's action to show that it was arbitrary, capricious, or unlawful. It entails a presumption that attorneys representing the government in court will provide truthful information in court, and will make a good faith effort to comply with court orders. It also entails that administrative actions will be made in good faith, rather than in an arbitrary and capricious manner. An analysis posted in the JUSTSECURITY website documents over 400 instances in which the Trump administration has eroded this presumption of regularity. They details 3 categrories of irregularity:

1)Compliance with Court orders. They document 16 instances in which the government failed to fully comply. They contrast this with history over the past 70 years – there’s only one prior instance of the government failing to comply with a court order: in the 1960s, a judge ordered a cessation of bombing in the Cambodian War. In this case, the non-compliance by the DOJ lasted only for a matter of hours.

2) Presenting false or misleading information in Court – 35 cases are described.

3)Arbitrary and capricious administrative action: 50 cases

If anyone is interested, the full report is here.

The lead author is Ryan Goodman, a law professor at New York University, who has worked with the State Department and the National Institute of Military Justice.

I consider this analysis extremely important because it identifies behavior by the Trump administration unrelated to partisanship, but firmly entrenched in the law. No one, of any ideological perspective, should consider this behavior acceptable.

He's an effective propagandist - effective at telling like-minded people what they want to here. It's especially appealing to those who are still in shock at the assassination of Mister Kirk.

Your response, pointing to actual analysis that falsifies what he says, seems to me the correct one, but none of his audience would be at all interested in researching it. — Relativist

Well said.

This is what the strategy of the new populist right is: entrench yourself in your own echo chamber and create your own version of reality by believing your own propaganda. Facts don't matter as you aren't engaged in any discussion. Everything is simply a show of your loyalty to the cause you engage in discourse to win the argument. The Trump team has learnt this now. Anybody remember Trump's first lies in his first term about inauguration crowd size? At first his people then had difficulties with this and the first spokesman had trouble to give a pure outright lie. Now they don't have any problems: it's just a show of faith. Trump supporters don't care a shit about it. If it causes outrage (as it before did) that was just good.

Politics simply has gone astray when it should something that ought to be grounded in reality and trying to find a consensus between opposing views, it turns into a religion. Then political discussion turns into a sermon where the faithful just compete in showing how faithful they are. This shows that the movement has reached an ideological end. Trump of course, didn't have any ideology behind him, but he just became this figure that ideological hopes were pinned on.

Right vs Left and Left vs Right. It gets dramatically worse even from just one news cycle to the next. There is no hope for honest, rational national discourse. — TonesInDeepFreeze

First of all, there is absolutely no intension to have a real discourse. Populists aren't for democracy, they have an enemy (usually the rich, but now it seems the Anti-Trump liberal rich). You don't negotiate with the enemy, you fight it. Democracy is only there for you to win the next elections. In a genuine engaging discussion you have to give respectability to the other side. That won't do. Besides, it's just easier to create a semi-fictional enemy.

:up: :up: :up: :up:

Not just populists and prominently egregious demagogues, but also "mainstream conservatives", "center right", Republicans in general, "mainstream liberals", "center left" Democrats in general, "centrists", "independents" and even "neutral" commentators. So much terribly low grade argumentation all over the place. The sneakiest are those who operate under a pretense of being "reasonable", "rigorous" and "analytical". While humans have made spectacular achievements in so many intellectual spheres, public discourse on matters of public affairs seems to continually regress.

I consider this analysis extremely important because it identifies behavior by the Trump administration unrelated to partisanship, but firmly entrenched in the law. No one, of any ideological perspective, should consider this behavior acceptable.

Well a new power has just ridden into town. Plenary powers.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/plenary-authority-stephen-miller-cnn-dictator-b2841627.html

The concept of plenary powers isn't new. For example, a President has the plenary power to grant pardons over federal crimes. But you're right, that the Trump administration is trying to expand his powers in many other areas.

Some of these claims will be heard by SCOTUS in this term.

Another potential terrorist foiled by authorities in Washington. One might assume his politics (and his mental capacity) by noting the potential targets.

A man had more than 200 handmade destructive devices — including bottle rockets and molotov cocktails — in a tent on the steps of a D.C. cathedral where Supreme Court justices were expected to attend Mass on Sunday, court records show. During his arrest, Louis Geri threatened to ignite explosives and handed authorities pages of his notebook that, according to court records, expressed animosity toward the Catholic Church, Supreme Court justices, members of the Jewish faith and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/10/06/bomb-threat-catholic-church-supreme-court/

These sorts of acts, along with the ongoing insurrections occurring throughout the country, hint at a country on the verge of civil war.

Which other insurrections?

The sneakiest are those who operate under a pretense of being "reasonable", "rigorous" and "analytical". While humans have made spectacular achievements in so many intellectual spheres, public discourse on matters of public affairs seems to continually regress. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Well, usually it starts with the objective being winning the argument just for the sake of winning.

What's with trump's seemingly random attacks on South American vessels? Is he looking for war?

It's no secret that Trump would like to see a regime change in Venezuela. Is he trying to irk them into a response, so he has an excuse to attack? If so, is he risking getting some neighbours involved?

Make America Sick Again

The CDC has been gutted. (— Neil Stone · Oct 11, 2025)

How can anyone think that RFK Jr is helping Americans?