April 23.
Mr. Kimmel had imagined himself as the M.C. at the dinner. “Of course, our first lady, Melania, is here,” he said on April 23rd. Then, pretending to address her, he called her “so beautiful” and added: “Mrs. Trump, you have a glow like an expectant widow.”
On April 25th a gunman broke past a security perimeter in the Washington Hilton while the president and first lady were attending the White House Correspondents Association Dinner.
Mr. Trump described the comedian’s joke on his social media as “really shocking” and “something far beyond the pale.” He ended his post: “Jimmy Kimmel should be immediately fired by Disney and ABC.”
The first lady had posted about Mr. Kimmel a few hours earlier.
“His monologue about my family isn’t comedy,” she wrote. “His words are corrosive and deepens the political sickness within America.” She called Mr. Kimmel, “a coward who shouldn’t have the opportunity to enter our homes each evening to spread hate. He hides behind ABC because he knows the network will keep running cover to protect him. Enough is enough. It is time for ABC to take a stand.”
Let’s take a look at how academia, progressives and those who project the ideology of Critical Social Justice Theory should have responded to Mr. Kimmel’s words. It is well known from our so called, “lessons” in cancel culture, violent speech and oppressive discourses that Critical Social Justice proponents should have immediately critiqued Kimmel’s words for problematics, hate and meaning. Thus, they would have stated how Kimmel’s words were speaking to the assassination of President Trump as if it actually happened.
Has even one Social Justice voice or academician so deep in social deconstruction, as Jacques Derrida would label it, offered their so-called critiques? Of course not. Only the political right, conservatives and Christians are to be judged for social impacts of harm on society due to their speech, such as calling a thing good or evil grounded in objective truth. Kimmel is free to speak hate. Progressives apply almost no constructive denouncement of violent speech from their own side. Words which are reified as acts of violent discourse only fit the ideological far left.
James Lindsay, author and critic of critical race theory, argues that CRT ideology operates by redefining speech as violence to control discourses, influenced by Marcuse's "repressive tolerance." Here, speech has no meaning unless it challenges their ideology and then acts as violent. Marcuse only required conservative voices to be repressed and not tolerated. Mr. Lindsay once stated in New Discourses, ‘We are living in Herbert Marcuse’s world.” Now. Liberal network managers and haters like Kimmel are a prime example and should never be tolerated in American media. Melania called it right: cowards
RPWaters
Mr. Kimmel had imagined himself as the M.C. at the dinner. “Of course, our first lady, Melania, is here,” he said on April 23rd. Then, pretending to address her, he called her “so beautiful” and added: “Mrs. Trump, you have a glow like an expectant widow.”
On April 25th a gunman broke past a security perimeter in the Washington Hilton while the president and first lady were attending the White House Correspondents Association Dinner.
Mr. Trump described the comedian’s joke on his social media as “really shocking” and “something far beyond the pale.” He ended his post: “Jimmy Kimmel should be immediately fired by Disney and ABC.”
The first lady had posted about Mr. Kimmel a few hours earlier.
“His monologue about my family isn’t comedy,” she wrote. “His words are corrosive and deepens the political sickness within America.” She called Mr. Kimmel, “a coward who shouldn’t have the opportunity to enter our homes each evening to spread hate. He hides behind ABC because he knows the network will keep running cover to protect him. Enough is enough. It is time for ABC to take a stand.”
Let’s take a look at how academia, progressives and those who project the ideology of Critical Social Justice Theory should have responded to Mr. Kimmel’s words. It is well known from our so called, “lessons” in cancel culture, violent speech and oppressive discourses that Critical Social Justice proponents should have immediately critiqued Kimmel’s words for problematics, hate and meaning. Thus, they would have stated how Kimmel’s words were speaking to the assassination of President Trump as if it actually happened.
Has even one Social Justice voice or academician so deep in social deconstruction, as Jacques Derrida would label it, offered their so-called critiques? Of course not. Only the political right, conservatives and Christians are to be judged for social impacts of harm on society due to their speech, such as calling a thing good or evil grounded in objective truth. Kimmel is free to speak hate. Progressives apply almost no constructive denouncement of violent speech from their own side. Words which are reified as acts of violent discourse only fit the ideological far left.
James Lindsay, author and critic of critical race theory, argues that CRT ideology operates by redefining speech as violence to control discourses, influenced by Marcuse's "repressive tolerance." Here, speech has no meaning unless it challenges their ideology and then acts as violent. Marcuse only required conservative voices to be repressed and not tolerated. Mr. Lindsay once stated in New Discourses, ‘We are living in Herbert Marcuse’s world.” Now. Liberal network managers and haters like Kimmel are a prime example and should never be tolerated in American media. Melania called it right: cowards
RPWaters