Desi Arnaz's Revolution Was Televised
How a risk-taking immigrant helped invent the three-camera sitcom
Desi Arnaz: The Man Who Invented Television, by Todd S. Purdum, Simon & Schuster, 368 pages, $29.99
There's been plenty written about I Love Lucy, but mostly about Lucy. What about I?
Desi Arnaz—the man who played Lucille Ball's husband on the show, and was married to her in real life too—was not just spectacularly successful; he was a revolutionary who changed TV in ways we feel to this day. But his fame has faded: I Love Lucy reruns used to be omnipresent, but if you see one now, it's likely to be on a channel with lots of ads for catheters.
Todd S. Purdum's biography—Desi Arnaz: The Man Who Invented Television—gives us a chance to revive the man's memory.
Desiderio Alberto Arnaz y de Acha III was born in 1917 in Santiago de Cuba. His father was the mayor, his family had an illustrious history, and he was raised in luxury. But when a mob burned down his house during the Cuban Revolution of 1933, it was time to leave. By 1934, he was living in Miami at a time when it had very few Cubans.
Arnaz had talent as a singer and musician, and the nationally known bandleader Xavier Cugat hired him. The good-looking and charismatic Arnaz soon scored great success on his own, particularly when he popularized the conga. He was featured in the 1939 Broadway musical Too Many Girls, then went to Hollywood to repeat his role in the film version for RKO.
The star of the movie was Lucille Ball, six years older, who had already appeared in over 50 films. Lucy and Desi were married before the year was over.

The 1940s were a tough decade for the couple. Professionally, Arnaz's Hollywood career didn't take off—Ricardo Montalbán became the screen's leading Latin lover—and he was soon back to being a bandleader (and picked up his signature tune "Babalu"). Ball, approaching 40, kept appearing in movies but couldn't quite break onto the A-list.
And privately, the couple often fought. One constant source of tension was Arnaz's roving eye. He regularly visited prostitutes.
In the late '40s, Ball was starring on the radio sitcom My Favorite Husband. She was asked to do a TV version. At this time, television was held in low regard. Going from movies to TV would be a big step down, all but admitting your film career is over. On the other hand, a hit in a new medium could bring new life to her career.
Ball agreed to do it on one condition: Her co-star would be Arnaz.
I Love Lucy, debuting in 1951, went on to become an enormous television hit—the biggest of the decade, maybe ever. But there were huge obstacles to overcome. Even before the show was scheduled, there was pushback from CBS and potential sponsors: Would people invite into their living rooms an all-American beauty married to a Cuban with an accent?
This has long been a problem in the entertainment business. People in the uncertain world of showbiz generally attempt to give the customers more of the same. But trying to be inoffensive underestimates the audience. Investing in something different carries risk, but the forward leaps that change the medium come from taking a chance.
To cut down on the chance, Lucy and Desi—and their newly formed Desilu Productions, run by Desi—created a live vaudeville act where Desi was the bandleader and Lucy would interrupt. It went over well, and it became the basic concept of I Love Lucy, where Lucy was always begging her husband to put her in the act.
Getting the OK for Arnaz's casting was just the beginning. For one thing, the couple did not want to leave Los Angeles. But back then there was no coast-to-coast transmission; TV was shot in New York and broadcast to the eastern half of the United States. A film camera (videotape didn't exist yet) would record a monitor and create a kinescope—an awful-looking reproduction that would be broadcast in the western states.
Arnaz would not accept kinescopes. He wanted his show to have a high-quality film look. On top of that, he wanted the show recorded live with three cameras and in front of an audience. This presented almost insurmountable technical problems, but he wouldn't take no for an answer.
So Arnaz contacted an old acquaintance, the Oscar-winning cinematographer Karl Freund, who initially said it couldn't be done. The reason movies are shot with one camera is that each angle needs its own lighting. Freund ultimately came up with lighting from above, so several cameras could shoot the scene from wherever they wanted. (While every innovation on the show went through Arnaz, they didn't all come from him.)
But how would an audience see the action with all the technical stuff in the way? I Love Lucy set up bleachers where the audience was seated above the cameras and had a clear view of the actors.
It sounds obvious today, but it was revolutionary then. Not that every show adapted immediately. In the 1960s, most popular sitcoms tended to be shot like a film, with one camera and no audience. That's how it worked with The Andy Griffith Show, The Beverly Hillbillies, and Bewitched. But by the '70s, the tide turned in Arnaz's favor: For the rest of the century, a majority of the most popular sitcoms were recorded live with multiple cameras—All in the Family, Happy Days (during its highest-rated years), Laverne & Shirley, The Cosby Show, Cheers, Roseanne, Seinfeld, Friends.
Then an odd thing happened in the 21st century: TV aficionados started treating one-camera shows (Arrested Development, The Office, 30 Rock, Modern Family) as if they were innately superior. The argument was that the approach offered more subtle performances, more intricate dialogue, more complex editing and cinematography. But as Lucy and Desi knew, there's a certain life to comedy when the actors are playing to an audience and off an audience. To say one format is simply better is like saying movies are naturally superior to stage plays.
It's been 20 years since a live sitcom won the Emmy for best comedy (Everybody Loves Raymond). And yet the most popular sitcom by far over the last 20 years—The Big Bang Theory—was recorded live. A little touch of Lucy has survived.
Another innovation of Arnaz's: Desilu owned the episodes after they were broadcast. In an age before people knew the commercial potential of reruns, no one figured the episodes would have much value. Not that Arnaz had such amazing foresight—he just figured he might be able to sell them to foreign nations. Today, it's understood that repeated showings of a hit are where the real money is made.
This being the 1950s, there was also some political trouble when Lucy was accused of being a Communist. Arnaz swung into action. He called the president of CBS and the head of Philip Morris, the tobacco company that sponsored I Love Lucy. He called Rep. Donald Jackson (R–Calif.), who sat on the House Un-American Activities Committee. And he called an old acquaintance: FBI head J. Edgar Hoover. He was able to nip the rumor in the bud.
With I Love Lucy in the No. 1 spot (one season it got a 67.3 rating—unimaginable in today's crowded marketplace, where shows celebrate when they get a 10), Desilu started branching out, producing such hits as Our Miss Brooks and December Bride. Arnaz started buying more and more space—the crowning touch being the purchase of the old RKO lot where Desi and Lucy met. At that point, the Desilu empire had more space than the major studios.
But Lucy and Desi's marriage was crumbling. They divorced in 1960, and Arnaz sold his interest in Desilu in 1962. The last hit show he was involved in was The Untouchables (1959–1963). Lucy kept doing sitcoms: She stayed in the top 10 into the 1960s and '70s with The Lucy Show and Here's Lucy. Eventually, though, even Lucy got old, and old-fashioned.
Arnaz continued in TV, mostly as a producer, but it was never the same. He lost his zeal and gained a drinking problem. Add a longtime smoking habit, and he developed serious health problems, dying in 1986 at age 69.
Lucille Ball is still part of the national consciousness. People fondly remember her stomping grapes, or dealing with chocolates on a conveyor belt, or getting drunk as she does an ad for Vitameatavegamin. Yet each year the memory grows dimmer. And her husband, if he's remembered at all, is mostly seen as her straight man, putting up with her wacky schemes, telling her she has some 'splainin' to do, occasionally blowing his stack and shouting at her in excited Spanish.
But as Purdum demonstrates, Arnaz was much more than that. If tonight you watch a rerun of Friends or The Big Bang Theory, know that you owe a small portion of your laughter to Desi Arnaz.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
If tonight you watch a rerun of Friends or The Big Bang Theory, know that you owe a small portion of your laughter to Desi Arnaz.. Also know that you’re gay.
Akita confirmed.
Just means you don't know you're gay. No chick is worth BBT.
Maybe you're watching it with a chick so you can get some.
"Also know that you’re gay."
An example of the hatred you are well known for here.
Nobody said anything hateful.
Everything someone to the right of Obama does is hateful, even bad jokes from the 90’s.
Charliehall is gheeeeyy! Super gay, in fact!
I've never watched any of those.
Barney Miller, WKRP Cincinnati (Loni Anderson) MASH, Monty Python, Sanford and Son, CHEERS,
Man. Lucy was a hot piece of tail back when she was younger.
Even into her 40s.
100%
Yet Desi still screwed around.
There are Consequences
The online database, now documenting nearly 40,000+ individuals and counting who publicly celebrated Charlie Kirk’s passing, along with details about their employers, is expected to be released to the public very soon
- Bellum Acta
https://www.charliesmurderers.com/
There are numerous videos of the formerly employed having meltdowns regarding being fired for publicly celebrating the murder of a father whose big crime was saying things against “the narrative.”
Turnabout is fair play.
*Breaking*
A CA distict judge issues nationwide injunction against employers firing people for cheering murder. The usual suspects declare super precedent.
Also, a NY district judge up holds firing of nurse who pointed out a doctor who approves of murdering people he disagrees with. The usual suspects declare super precedent.
Their go to lately is APA and animus.
Such shallow jurists we have running around these days. This excerpt (link to full article below) about says it all:
"...That was an impression of Lord Moulton’s view of the Domain of Manners. As a practical matter, people who demonstrate that they will not behave decently cannot be expected to behave honorably, and if they cannot be expected to behave honorably, they cannot be trusted with matters of public importance. The doctors, nurses, lawmakers, teachers, and so on, who abandoned any sense of probity in order to seek affirmation from a largely illusory audience of progressives, have forfeited a measure of trust. They do not get the benefit of the doubt that they will refrain from harming those with whom they disagree. If trust is an element of one’s job, loss of trust is grounds for loss of that job.
No one should go to jail or have to pay a fine for poor taste or disgusting behavior in response to someone’s murder. However, the experience of appropriate consequences imposed by businesses whose success depends on a favorable public image, or organizations whose credibility depends on ideological neutrality, is part of the practice of self-governance. Societies are entitled to discourage the glorification of harmful behaviors, such as cold-blooded murder, by any means that are legally allowed to them.
Manners have purposes in a society, but even more fundamentally, basic standards of decency are a hallmark of a people who are worthy of living in a free society."
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/09/after_charlie_kirk_decency_and_the_response_to_murder.html
Well said.
And poor Demon Jeffy.
So, let's take a look at some of these.
Some of the messages are, in fact, pretty bad I would say. But some are not.
Here's a few examples:
One person wrote, "Is the gun okay?"
One person wrote, "Karma's a bitch"
One person wrote, "He died, as he lived: a throbbing hemorrhoid in the rectum of civil society."
So, these are now apparently all classified as "celebrating his death" when at best they are mocking or sarcastic. But this is how it is going to go: anyone who is not on the Team Red Narrative Train is going to be labeled as an Enemy of Society.
I'm quite certain you think they should all be fired. Perhaps even jailed, who knows. And then you wonder why some people think you're fascists.
The purpose of deporting visa holders over speech and condoning attacks on critics of martyrs is to set a precedent for criminalizing criticism of Trump. A lot can happen in three and a half years.
You own this, Sarcasmic. You and the fat fuck.
The documented ones that have been terminated were openly jubilating and thankful that Charlie Kirk was assassinated by that rainbow cult member. It is up to each employer to determine whether they wish to take action.
Take a lesson from Trump:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=knlJWu815C0&pp=
Do you think the person who wrote, "Is the gun okay?" should be fired?
The next phase is credential bodies such as for healthcare workers celebrating the murder of someone are apparently being contacted. Someone licensed to help preserve life celebrating the taking of a life might no longer hold their professional license.
"Celebrating the murder", you mean, like writing "Is the gun okay?", an obviously sarcastic remark? Should this person be fired?
I’m not their employer nor the keeper of that list. If I were their employer, I’d have a quick chat with them and review how we hired such a retard with the goal of future avoidance.
So if you were the employer, you would have a "quick chat" with this person? For what purpose? Would you punish or demote this person? Would you fire this person?
For them to discuss their poor character. Fortunately, that is key to when I bring people in. I don’t think someone would get past their quality and be hired.
Interestingly, other people responsible for terminating based on being a bad human are agreeing.
You're hedging and dodging the main thrust of the question. So after this person has "discussed their poor character", then what? Punishment? Termination?
Poor Demon Jeffy.
Jeff, you are really stupid. I’m not here to fix your lack of intelligence. Keep flailing.
He really is a monster. Always tears for the perps and the rapists, but never for their victims.
I don't say he's evil without justification.
Say, is it "demonization" to call out people acting like demons?
Democrats did it first.
The Democrats did it always. In the last decade the violence has been consistently blue on red.
June 2024, US Department of Justice Research
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Militant, nationalistic, white supremacist violent extremism has increased in the United States. In fact, the number of far-right attacks continues to outpace all other types of terrorism and domestic violent extremism. Since 1990, far-right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated homicides than far-left or radical Islamist extremists, including 227 events that took more than 520 lives. In this same period, far-left extremists committed 42 ideologically motivated attacks that took 78 lives.
Drink!
You know Sarc will. He'll have another 40 of Colt 45.
It's Sunday. He might be down to Sterno or hand sanitizer until tomorrow.
If we all had a drink every time sarc said that we’d be as drunk as him.
Do you think people who were in the capital for J6 protests should have been fired? Even those who left before the riot at the capital building?
https://www.reuters.com/article/world/us/some-us-capitol-rioters-fired-after-internet-detectives-identify-them-idUSKBN29C36L/
Also, should they have been turned in by their phone company? Bank? And subsequently debanked?
A few businesses in my area have found themselves boycotted because owners and managers cheered Kirk's murder. I don't support further actions against the people for their speech, but I'm completely on board with naming and shaming so people who want me dead don't get my money.
What about the rightwingers who are advocating for civil war and want Democrats dead? Does that bother you at all?
The site now has hundreds of posts listing other conservatives to kill.
Jeff is angry for this reason. He wants them to plan in quiet.
He probably wrote half of them himself.
Maybe he lives in NC.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15097451/maga-supporter-shooting-trump-sign-north-carolina.html
One person wrote, "Is the gun okay?"
One person wrote, "Karma's a bitch"
One person wrote, "He died, as he lived: a throbbing hemorrhoid in the rectum of civil society."
Fight Like Hell!
*drops microphone*
So, Jeffy, do you think the J6ers should've lost their jobs? Or people who supported Trump? Or people who believe the 2020 election was stolen?
I can keep going.
Surprising no one, he never responded.
Reason to produce 5000 word thinkpiece on toxic "cancel culture".
Typical MAGA. Hijacking everything.
Are you so obsessed that everything has to be about promoting your hatred?
Enjoy some of the humor that Lucy and Desi gave us:
https://youtu.be/Xrx-Nd4QClE?si=aBxaw6arHYuu4H6K
Haha, you’re gay.
https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/warmington-scarborough-teacher-accused-of-showing-charlie-kirk-murder-video-to-kids
“Several students from his class went home and complained to their parents, traumatized at witnessing the on-camera death, which they were forced to witness numerous times over,” a source close to the situation alleged. “Parents subsequently reached out to school administrators, who will be putting him on leave at the start of the school day September 12th 2025.”
Article content
“While playing this video repeatedly, he gave a speech to his students regarding anti-fascism, anti-trans, and how Charlie Kirk deserved for this to occur,” the source claimed.
I'm sure jeff will defend this.
The outright gaslighting of the left and media the last 24 hours has been absolutely disgusting. From NYT, to Axios, to X we continue to see them highlight Robinsons family as republican as if politics is hereditary. All while ignoring the literal messaging on bullet casings, the Trans boyfriend, interviews from Robinsons friends.
It is just absolutely disgusting.
Comcast NBCUniversal even had to send a memo to all the MSNBC employees to knock that shit off.
https://corporate.comcast.com/stories/a-statement-from-comcast
Perhaps subscribers notify their provider that it is time to sunset MSNBC.
*MSNow
And the kids got the next day off and they stayed home and played call of duty and mortal kombat.
Nah. They zone out while pretending to pay attention to a high paid social worker asking if they're sure they're comfortable with their chosen gender.
...which they understand to be fantasy, because, unlike their teachers, they are not retarded.
Check out Welch on X. He was arguing that he doesn't see tons of lefties celebrating the murder and advocating for more.
He's right. There are indeed some fringies who said some really horrible things. And then there are people who aren't "celebrating" his murder, but just aren't all that sad about it, and making mocking comments like "is the gun okay?" and "karma's a bitch". Team Red wants to classify every comment that doesn't align with their own feelings on the matter to be equivalent to "celebrating Kirk's murder" when that is not fair and not right.
"Don't believe your lying eyes folks!" - Welch and Lying Jeffy
Bluesky and the Twitter Resistance are full of nothing but but Welch and Jeffy say it's not happening.
Probably because Welch is guilty of eliminationist rhetoric against conservatives himself, when he told his Twitter followers they should hold a red wedding for all the conservatives they know.
50,000 confirmed and documented is just a few.
Sucks to try to claim "boaf sidez" when it's all your side doing it, eh, Jeffy?
Not if you’re a psychopathic liar and facts don’t matter.
It is amazing how intentionally blind the reason writers are.
Jeff is u destined as he is just lying about being blind, since he is evil.
Of course Welch doesn't see it. He's guilty of the same.
Poland now saying no drones entered their airspace. Gulf of Tonkin 2 I suppose. Neocons hardest hit.
Trans activists on X stated a day before a mentally ill guy dating a mentally ill trans cosplayer assassinated Charlie Kirk that “something big will be happening to Charlie Kirk tomorrow.” Trans terror cell being suggested. Investigate the rainbow deathcult.
In other forums I visit, I've noted a bunch of people saying Tyler was a conservative because his family was conservative. I've asked them if they think conservative Christian Republicans normally live with trans people, and if trans people normally choose to live with conservative Christian Republicans.
So far, nothing but silence from those people. Talk about an inconvenient truth.
It has become pretty clear that this assassination has ginned up quite a bit of outrage, and at least some people on the left are drawing a comparison to Vance Boelter.
I've looked into that claim a bit, and while people on the right are pointing to his appointment by Walz and the fact he had 'No Kings' posters, it seems a stretch to assume Vance was on the left. His murder of two Democrats in Minnesota is also pretty awful. Trying to judge why he decided to do what he did is something of a rorschach test though since we still have no idea what his reasoning was for those killings. He refuses to say, but since both targets were Democrats it's hard to imagine some other reason for the killings.
This isn't meant to exonerate that POS Tyler that shot Kirk, but it does show that political violence by nut jobs is increasing. The rhetoric needs to be dialed back, but of course it won't be.
In the case of Vance, I don't think one can even claim rhetoric was the cause since he seems to be ideologically driven regardless of what the media said or did. He was, after all, a pastor himself. Clearly he didn't read the book he claimed to follow though, which I would note Kirk actually did. Kirk reached out to the left and tried to change their minds peacefully, Vance certainly did not.
Tyler doesn't seem to have any deeply held ideology, and was probably just a closeted gay person that lost their shit after being seeped in far left trans rhetoric. Probably from their 'roommate', but also probably online. I won't be shocked if, in the coming weeks, it turns out the 'roommate' knew what was going to happen and did nothing or perhaps even helped make it happen.
The mentally ill rainbow cult roommate/gay liver thing is reportedly fully cooperating with authorities.
I've seen that reported as well, but we shall see.
The hit list by thr Minnesota shooter had both democrats and conservatives on it. He has also given an interview.
In that case, what I read was probably outdated.
Not true. Every politician on the "hit list" was a Democrat.
https://www.fox9.com/news/minnesota-lawmaker-bca-shooting-suspects-list-lawmakers-not-manifesto
Vance's focus was on politicians and individuals who supported abortion rights.
He wrote right in his fucking manifesto that he was doing it as a favor to Tim Walz so he could become a senator.
https://www.startribune.com/vance-boelter-letter-klobuchar-walz-mn-assassination/601376682
The only person who ever said Boelter was a conservative was a single neighbor who lived miles down the road and was paid by CNN for the interview.
Edit: The whole abortion narrative turned out to be bullshit too, because the supposed list of Democratic party lawmakers and abortion clinics the FBI were said to have found was a media fabrication. The result of a game of telephone with each others articles.
the supposed list of Democratic party lawmakers and abortion clinics the FBI were said to have found was a media fabrication
Is that so. You have proof of this claim, then, right?
Listen up you fat fucking piece of shit. Where the fuck are the proofs of your claim of Kirk having "some terrible views" and doing "some terrible things", that I asked for?
You're sealioning me for shit that is available everywhere, while refusing to provide examples of things you believe made him murder-worthy, other than your demented claim he made a list of bigoted professors to avoid if you're a conservative.
I can't tell you how deeply I loathe you for smearing this man to cover for your violent and hate-based ideology.
Maybe if Kirk had jacked off on a child but promised to feel bad about it later it would arouse your sympathy.
So no proof. Got it.
Ah yes, Jeffy's classic of changing the subject so he doesn't actually have to answer a question that puts him in a tight spot.
If he does will you admit you are full of shit?
Jeffy, admit he's a fat fucking piece of shit? He'll never admit to that, but he'll lie his fat fucking ass off about it.
At first I assumed poor little tyler was just another angry leftist incel, like KAR. I mean, who quits college after one semester if he’s getting laid? No one, that’s who. That and the receding hairline and combover at 22 just screamed angry, creepy incel.
Fast forward a few years from the college failure, and this ghoul is fucking a dude pretending to be a chick. Wow.
A little pussy would have mellowed this freak out a bit. I can see why no chick would go near him though. Sad all the way around. He can reflect on what he’s done when he’s getting butt raped in prison. At least until they put him down.
Crudely put but yes pussy might have saved this kid.
Pussy’s got me through a lot of hard times.
Thats what its supposed to be for - hard times.
I actually agree with most of this. But come on, can we knock it off with tripe like this?
Kirk reached out to the left and tried to change their minds peacefully,
What Kirk did was to stage rigged "debates" with poorly informed college students as performative stunts. He did this in order to try to win converts among other poorly informed college students by "winning" those debates. It was never about "reaching out to the left". It was always about advancing his tribe and his tribe's interests. Do you know what would actually be "reaching out to the left"? Perhaps by hosting a forum among academics of different sides who could debate an idea freely and openly. That would truly be an educational experience. But that's not the type of thing that he did. Why not? Because he wouldn't be able to count on an automatic "win" if he did that. Because if he had to actually debate scholars who disagreed with him, he might wind up losing, or at least looking like he lost.
Credentialism has no credit here.
It's not about mere credentialism. It's about having a debate with people who are actually intellectually prepared to have that debate. Kirk purposefully did not want to have those debates, and in those few times when he did, his weaknesses were evident.
So the credentialed are worthless now?
What a fast bus you have there.
No, not "worthless" lol. Stop being a binary thinking twat.
Isn't false dichotomy your specialty, Lying Jeffy?
So now the students are actually being informed by the teachers (the credentialed)?
Pick a fucking lane.
he debated with president of Oxford union
I would assume that chap had 'credentials'
…with poorly informed college students..
Perhaps they were better informed when he was done talking to them.
While Jeff has long been on my block list for his endless list of retarded takes, it's probably notable that people like Jeff are exactly the kind of emotive reactionary people that Kirk destroyed in rational debate.
It's little wonder why Jeff might be excited to see him get shot.
He is apparently refusing to talk.
Except for all the long form debates and sit down discussions he did with politicians and pundits from the left. I think he even did an Oxford Union debate and an episode of jubilee.
But yeah, just dumb college kids so he could “win”.
Actually Boelter has been pretty forthcoming about his motives. He believes that Walz wanted him to assassinate Amy Klochabar and that other Democrat state actors were in on the scheme. These were political assassinations because the victims were elected officials. But there is no evidence that Vance was motivated by right wing ideology. He targeted Democrats because they control the power structure in Minnesota. The dude is clearly delusional but he's not MAGA.
No wonder it wasnt reported in legacy media. Harder to maintain the narrative
Read a report that the drones only got close to Poland because NATO was spoofing the GPS on the border to cause the issue.
Poland now saying no drones entered their airspace.
Where is this information coming from? Is this in reference to the drones they shot down a few days ago or the more rescent close call?
The US needs common sence fag control
Well I guess the latest talking points are out - we are all now supposed to pretend that Charlie Kirk was some Mr. Robinson figure, a Boy Scout, who was killed ONLY because he so highly believed in the concept of free speech. In fact Charlie Kirk had some terrible views and did some terrible things. He had a "professor watchlist" which was deliberately intended to chill the free speech of certain professors that he disagreed with. Is that how a "free speech martyr" is supposed to act? He "debated" poorly informed college students as a stunt, deliberately punching down, and so when he "won" the debate, he could advertise that he "DESTROYED THE LEFT" in his latest video. When did Charlie Kirk ever debate someone his own age? Like, say, an actual professor? I watched a clip of Charlie Kirk debating a professor at Cambridge University, and that professor didn't let Kirk get away with his usual suite of logical fallacies that he is able to use on uninformed college students. If anyone on the left had done what Charlie Kirk had done, you would call him a huckster and a charlatan and you'd be right.
This is part of the cultural totalitarianism of the right. They are demanding that we all see the world through their eyes. They cannot tolerate that other people have opinions that they might disagree with. The Party has spoken - if you say "I'm not sad that he died", that is labeled as CELEBRATING HIS MURDER and SUPPORTING TERRORISM and you will be shamed and hounded into submission with the Party Narrative. THIS IS ONE REASON WHY YOU'RE CALLED FASCISTS. You just don't tolerate disagreement or dissent. You're demonstrating one reason why many people disliked Kirk in your reaction to his death.
Doesn’t feel good being on the wrong side, does it?
It’s a religion.
Amen, your holiness. And you and your fellow murder apologist must at least rank as bishops.
Sarc, go fuck yourself with a cactus.
Begone demon.
I wonder if Lying Jeffy is exorcible?
Can we make an ASCII cross or a wreath of garlic? Is there a way to sprinkle holy water on the comments?
I wish. I'd laugh my ass off if a Jeffy comment started burning up the second holy water hits it.
Or say your over 14. That repels him pretty quickly
Amazing level of missing the plot and another failed attempt to justify/chaff & redirect.
Hes been justifying conservatives being shot since that antifa shot one in Portland. Jeff is evil.
What other reason besides being evil would even explain what he’s trying to do? Does he imagine he’s going to convince someone that actually it was good he was murdered and we should stop caring?
In his twisted mind, getting canned for celebrating someone getting murdered is equal to murdering someone for their speech.
For Team Red, not being sad at Kirk's murder is equal to "celebrating Kirk's murder" and a basis for being fired.
All must submit to the Team Red narrative!
Horrible misrepresentation. You are Tony level bad at this.
No I'm right, and you are the one deflecting. See above.
You’re now at charliehall stupid.
Then try answering my question above. You can't, because I suspect it is because you want to see people fired not for "celebrating his murder", but because they simply disagree with you about his murder. You WANT the stifling cultural conformity where most people agree on most things and social pressure to conform is enormous. Am I wrong? If I'm wrong, convince me. Just like Charlie Kirk would do.
The plot.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. <— you are here
No, Jeff, you're just retarded and lying. It gets really dull after a while of reading your long-winded diatribes that amount to jack shit.
I think Babylon Bee did a pretty good job of illustrating this phenomena.
Democrats Say No Place for Violence Against Evil Nazi Republicans
That's about it, in a nutshell.
Hilarious, because I post an article below that is NOT satire that comes from an actual Republican Member of Congress, who does the same thing but for real - "let's tone down the rhetoric! Oh by the way, Democrats are evil!"
Maybe you could stop being evil?
You must forgive JesseBot, he is just repeating what he is programmed to say. His code base is something like this:
if (person =/= conservative) then
person = "celebrating Kirk's death"
You are so bad at this.
You’re broken.
It's your team that went completely broken upon Charlie Kirk's murder. Initially your team blamed "the Left" and demanded war and retribution. And now when more details have emerged, which makes the shooter's actual motives much more murky, you're moving on to demanding that anyone who doesn't think like you on this topic should be fired and canceled.
You're just going to keep pushing and pushing until everyone is forced to submit to your cultural worldview.
More gaslighting. Completely broken you are. This is like watching sarc when TDS destroyed him.
In other words Trumpians are just like the leftists they hate.
Jeff's broken, and you're fucking shattered.
Are you two serious?
which makes the shooter's actual motives much more murky,
Are you serious?!!
I can only attribute that statement to a pathetic attempt to gaslight.
“THIS IS ONE REASON WHY YOU’RE CALLED FASCISTS. You just don’t tolerate disagreement or dissent.”
Lol. Wow. You mean like shooting someone who disagrees with you? Or are you referring to all the rioting that’s been going on since Wednesday?
You can’t really be this much of a piece of shit. It has to be an act.
By the way, why do you suppose some people avoid mass transit or living in urban areas? It must be hatred of the planet and minorities, right?
Asshole.
You mean like shooting someone who disagrees with you?
Your team's "Charlie's Murderers" hit list includes many people who explicitly denounce his murder. They just aren't sad that he died. But that's not good enough for you. You are demanding that everyone feel just as sad about his death as you do. That is the cultural totalitarianism that I am referencing. Embrace it and own it.
I am not “demanding” anything, you idiot. I am merely taking note of who is shooting who over “disagreements” and who you think qualifies as “fascist”. Seems that “you have a right to free speech, but not to a job” is a popular sentiment with you when people get fired for disrespecting the tranny cult, but getting fired for celebrating a political assassination is beyond the pale.
By the way, why do you suppose some people avoid “mass transit and living in urban areas”?
Idiot.
None of the people on that list shot Charlie Kirk. They simply responded in ways that you don't like. Very few of them were actually "celebrating" his murder. The largest number of them were simply not sad, making mocking or sarcastic comments. Do you disagree? Or are you going to claim that a sarcastic comment like "is the gun safe?" is a genuine attempt to celebrate Kirk's murder?
I never said anyone had a right to a job. Your exercise of 'cancel culture' is far more totalitarian than anyone trying to get people canceled over pronouns. Your team is trying to get canceled because they don't accept the ludicrous Boy Scout caricature that your team has posthumously concocted about Charlie Kirk.
They're celebrating over a murder, asshole. It must really suck dead penguin balls to be at the other end of that shit stick.
Jeff lacks total self awareness of his religion. He celebrated cities burned to 2B with nearly 30 deaths all for his religion of politics.
He defended censorship of trump and during covid. Yet defends celebrating a murder. Notice the right is doing nothing but highlighting their own words, not using government to fire or censor them. Unlike jeffs team with government induced censorship, operation checkpoint activities, etc.
Jeff is evil.
He celebrated cities burned
Here, JesseBot is using the term "celebrated" in the same way that he uses the term in the phrase "celebrated Kirk's death" - meaning, anyone who disagrees with the JesseBot programming on the matter.
You’re showing everyone what you are, demon.
Jesse lies about people to goad them into defending themselves. He thinks he’s a master baiter, but he’s just a monkey flinging poop.
We've told you to stop projecting, Sarc.
Above, Jeff is using the term “demanding” when I have said nothing about an appropriate reaction to Kirk’s assassination, nor have I expressed being “sad” about it.
You can sqwauk all you want about the “culture war”, but murder is real, and if you wanna tell us that there’s a nuance to it that needs to be considered, we are going to tell you to fuck off.
Asshole.
You contradict yourself in the same comment:
I have said nothing about an appropriate reaction to Kirk’s assassination
if you wanna tell us that there’s a nuance to it that needs to be considered, we are going to tell you to fuck off.
So, what are you waiting for, Jeff? Fuck off.
Even reddit thinks he is a too far left retard.
No contradiction. I “demand” nothing. You offered up your retarded take of your own free will.
This is my reaction: Fuck off.
Asshole.
When your first public reaction to an event like this is a pointed disregard of the act itself, and a disparaging remark about the victim it is the same as the footer to all political ads...
"I'm Joe Asshole and I approve that act."
Well I guess the latest talking points are out - we are all now supposed to pretend that Charlie Kirk was some Mr. Robinson figure, a Boy Scout, who was killed ONLY because he so highly believed in the concept of free speech. In fact Charlie Kirk had some terrible views and did some terrible things.
No one deserves to die, but...
He didn't deserve to die either. I'm just not sad about it.
Are you now going to insist that I feel just as sad about it as you do?
Lol. No, he is not. Straw man.
Asshole.
That scumbag supports free speech, but...
Well terrible views really cross the line. The Brits have figured that out which explains the impressive decline in assassinations in the UK. If we can believe the statistics.
we are all now supposed to pretend that Charlie Kirk was some Mr. Robinson figure, a Boy Scout, who was killed ONLY because he so highly believed in the concept of free speech.
Yes.
In fact Charlie Kirk had some terrible views and did some terrible things.
Name them. Or is your purported "professor watchlist" it. Even if it were true, there's zero wrong with pointing out ideologically extreme professors BTW. You guys do it constantly to normal professors who don't adhere to your demented trans ideology, and you know it.
Interesting to know that you think supposedly making a list of kooks, should earn you a shot to the throat.
We don't call you a Nazi without reason.
Oh, BTW. The guy you just shot was one of the most milquetoast conservatives ever. Ten years ago he would have been center left. So good luck finding more things to smear him with, you evil piece of shit.
Yes.
There's our post-modernist ML - attempting to create reality from narrative. The motives of the shooter are actually rather murky. He might be some left-wing radical, he might be some far-right Groyper, he might be just a deranged guy seeking fame by taking bad advice from the darkest reaches of the Internet. But no, your team created the initial narrative that it was left-wing violence just to shut him up, and you're going to continue with that forever.
Your projection knows no bounds, Jeffy. You're the one here creating reality from whole cloth. You're the post-modernist. You're the liar. And you just can't accept that the assassin is one of yours. Own him, motherfucker. Own him.
See how easily Demon Jeffy lies folks? It’s an ingrained part of his being.
A post modernist accusing others of being post modernist as a smear is a new one, that’s for sure.
These fucking Christ-loving faggots that deny the separation of church and state in the First Amendment piss me off the most. They are no different than Islamo-fascists. They hate liberty and want everyone else to serve their filthy Gawd.
https://psychcentral.com/disorders/treating-pedophilia#aversion-therapy
Religion enslaves more people today than communism does.
https://psychcentral.com/disorders/treating-pedophilia#aversion-therapy
Treating pedofilia and chipping down logs, a 2 in one approch
How about hardcore child porn, Shrike? Exactly like that you posted here and got your original SPB account banned.
turd, the ass-wipe of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
You were banned for posting a link to child porn.
turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
They’re demanding that you see political execution as wrong. Fucking cultural totalitarians!
"Bake that cake!" - fascism
"Print that poster!" - not fascism
https://www.michigannewssource.com/2025/09/office-depot-fires-employee-who-refused-to-produce-a-charlie-kirk-poster-because-it-was-propaganda/
Do we think Demon Jeffy is really too stupid to understand the difference here, or is he just being dishonest?
Bake that cake was an order from the justice system.
"print that poster" was done based on a phone call from Trump.
It's funny how the Charlie Kirk situation seems to have made the "Maryland Dad" of Reason commenters aggressively retarded.
Imagine a cake shop had an employee and the the employee refused to work on a gay cake because he felt it was "propaganda" corrupting our fine youth. He thinks someone here in the comments would be inconsistent and NOT support the firing of that employee for literally refusing to do his job. And further, he thinks an employee of a corporation not doing his or her job is somehow a glaring inconsistency when the owner of a cake shop refuses to do business with a particular customer.
It's deeper than being retarded. It's something even worse.
Jeff’s had a tough week. Everything he stands up for is blowing up in spectacular fashion and he would prefer we don’t believe our lying eyes.
Turns out people don’t like murder. Go figure.
The employer recognized that the retard team blue rainbow cult activist employee was not following company policy and fired her for poor performance as well as printed the poster for tge customer. The “bake the cake” situation was govt forcing an individual to go against their religion. Way different except perhaps to someone stupid and partisan.
Lets ask a gay baker to make us a memorial cake for Charlie. What do you think will they will say?
I’m sorry, did I miss the part in the article where it said that the government made Office Depot fire that person?
Flashback: That time when Charlie Kirk advocated for political violence
https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-joe-biden-should-be-put-prison-andor-given-death-penalty-crimes-against
"Joe Biden is a bumbling dementia filled Alzheimer's corrupt tyrant who should honestly be put in prison and/or given the death penalty for his crimes against America."
Say that about Trump and you deserve to be fired, assaulted, and jailed.
Who said that? People say that and worse about trump all the time.
Idiot.
Jeff and sarc both have called trump Hitler regularly. They both call conservatives fascists. They both claim the administration is disappearing people. They have bought into every word the shooter did.
And there are dozens upon dozens of comments of both Jeff and Sarc saying as such. All any of us need do is go back to a thread between 2016 and now and we've have a gold mine.
"prison and/or given the death penalty for his crimes against America"
Sounds like he was asking for due process not political violence. But I am not surprised you are too stupid to know the difference.
He knows. He’s just that dishonest.
Okay fair
Hahahaha, goddamn man.
Just unplug for a few days, you’ve clearly lost it.
Sounds like he was an advocate for "DUE PROCESS" 😉
Here is Charlie Kirk with a very bigoted take.
https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-accuses-rep-jasmine-crockett-being-part-attempt-eliminate-white
Yeah, he is just a guy who "debated college students".
So? People on your side claim that not respecting personal pronouns is “trans genocide”. Then sometimes those trans people shoot little kids at catholic schools. Far as I know nobody got shot over Kirk’s remarks, nor did he suggest anyone should. There is no equivocation or nuance that applies here. *as a group*, you suck. Haha.
Asshole.
So?
The point is that Charlie Kirk wasn't the Boy Scout you all paint him to be.
The only person I’ve seen here call him a boy scout is you, Demon Jeffy.
The data shows that while white Americans remain the largest single racial group, their proportional representation continues to decrease as other demographic groups experience growth.
How he is wrong? White people are being replaced in the US by immigrants. Crockett is an idiot who hates white people.
https://headlineusa.com/jasmine-crocketts-bizarre-rant-white-people-cant-be-oppressed/
So what? Who cares, other than bigots?
Tell us again once one of them assaults you or robs you.
https://www.newsweek.com/democrats-are-massive-hypocrites-so-called-great-replacement-theory-opinion-1708768
https://youtu.be/IbJRrdhf-BY?si=_yxrvnUtaQn4QzXO
Why come you care about people saying such things, bigot? - jeff
Here's a few of Charlie Kirk's best takes. And by "best", I mean nauseating.
https://archive.is/z4oyZ
"Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You’re not in charge." - referring to the engagement of Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce
"Islam is the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America."
"There is no separation of church and state. It’s a fabrication, it’s a fiction, it’s not in the constitution. It’s made up by secular humanists."
"If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified."
"Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more."
"The American Democrat party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white."
But yeah, the ONLY reason for a person not to be sad at Charlie Kirk's death is because that person hates free speech. Yup. That's the ONLY reason.
“Yeah, so?” /Trump defenders
Is that all you've got, you little toady?
The best part of your act is how unwilling you are to separate egalitarianism from libertarianism, as evidenced by the first one.
But as long as he convinces the retard sarcasmic, he feels justified. Jeff targets retards for his religion because he is evil.
Egalitarianism is a key component of libertarianism. "ALL MEN are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights" and all that.
You can't have a respect for the individual liberty of *all* if liberty is conditioned on some hierarchical structure.
That is absolutely false. Egalitarianism supports equal outcomes which can only be arrived at by injustice, coercion and force.
Well, this site explains it better than me:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egalitarianism/
There are different types of egalitarianism: distributive egalitarianism, relational egalitarianism, and moral egalitarianism. When I say egalitarianism is a component of libertarianism, it is this last one I am referring to. Moral egalitarianism is "the idea that humans have equal moral worth and all count the same." That is what I am referring to. This is what many commenters here reject.
In common usage egalitarianism refers to redistributive. So when you use the word that’s what most people think of.
Well, that is fair. I will try to be more precise in the future.
Can you two find a room together to do your own circle jerk?
Jeffy doesn't do that with anyone over 11.
Kirks statement on feminism had nothing to do with libertarianism, hence the point of what I said.
You think they are co-equal, but they aren't.
And as I've said before, when the choice between them comes up, you don't choose libertarianism.
Kirks statement on feminism had nothing to do with libertarianism
I think that is a debatable claim, but it's utterly besides the point that I am trying to make. The point is that Kirk had some pretty obnoxious views that some people would justifiably object to, for reasons that had nothing at all to do with "debating college students".
Nothing obnoxious about his feminism view, unless, again, egalitarian.
When it comes to moral egalitarianism, yeah there is. Why should one side in a supposedly co-equal partnership "submit" to the other side?
Gosh, it's almost like Kirk was speaking from what he actually believed (aka Christianity).
I can see why that upsets you so much.
That's fine that he was a devout Christian. It's just not consistent with a moral egalitarian view of liberty. Demanding that the wife "submit" to the husband is not respectful of the wife's dignity and inherent self-worth. And it is completely understandable how some people might find this viewpoint obnoxious, having nothing to do with "debating college kids".
So that makes it OK to approve of his being murdered?
It's just not consistent with a moral egalitarian view of liberty.
No fucking shit, but it isn't contradictory toward libertarianism, but because you cannot separate the two, you find it obnoxious.
So that makes it OK to approve of his being murdered?
No. But it does give a reason why someone might not be terribly sad that he did die, as opposed to the stupid "because they hate free speech" crap.
No fucking shit, but it isn't contradictory toward libertarianism, but because you cannot separate the two, you find it obnoxious.
I feel like I am going in circles.
How do you have a robust defense of liberty *for all* if liberty is conditioned on some hierarchical structure? If the wife is supposed to "submit" to the husband, it implies that the wife's liberty is not as important as the husband's. How is that consistent with a libertarian guarantee of liberty *for all*?
*for all*
All only includes those under the governing jurisdiction.
We don't protect or defend the rights of those beyond that, for reasons that should be obvious.
Are you a globalist or not?
Can we stick to the topic at hand? We were talking about the relative liberty of a husband and wife in the context of a traditional Christian understanding of the wife "submitting" to the husband. This type of arrangement implies that the wife's liberty is less important than the husband's. Do you agree or disagree?
Through the secular lense, of course it looks like liberty of one is set below another.
There are no shortage of Christians in the US you could ask to correct your reference frame.
Then try to explain it. How does one person "submitting" to another person make their liberty equivalent? How does it mean that their dignity and self-worth are the same?
Why should one side in a supposedly co-equal partnership "submit" to the other side?
THE US CONSTITUTION DOES THIS. Executive submits to rulings by the judicial. Legislative sets the laws for Administrative to put into effect.... etc etc
Ahh, I see you decided to go with the full buzzfeed list.
Je Suis Charlie!
But yeah man, fuck those cartoons man!
Stop hiding behind sarcasm. What are you actually upset about? Are you upset that Charlie Kirk was more than a guy who "just debated college students"? Are you upset that there are legitimate reasons to think that he might not have been a great guy, considering some of his more repulsive views?
Once again, I don't think he should have been murdered, No he didn't deserve it. I feel sorry for his family. But I'm not going to shed a tear either.
The people I truly do feel sorry for, are the innocent victims that your team is fomenting a backlash against. How many careers or lives are you going to ruin because some people think differently than you?
Lmao. Keep going Demon Jeffy, you’re doing great!
In the 1960s, most popular sitcoms tended to be shot like a film, with one camera and no audience. That's how it worked with The Andy Griffith Show, The Beverly Hillbillies, and Bewitched.
In some fairness, the 'live audience' component was just about always a gimmick and was largely replaced by the horrific laugh track. Even when it wasn't an actual laugh track, the audience was told what to do making it pretty obvious that it was a gimmick at best.
The multiple camera angles was innovative, but I really can't get behind the 'filmed in front of a LIVE audience' nonsense as you don't usually want jackasses in the audience to mess up your scenes or audio.
by the horrific laugh track.
I'm a bit of a heretic on the 'laugh track'. I understand that it can be characterized as a contrivance or gimmick, and that's fair. But some of the greatest comedies of all time have used laugh tracks and there are edits and versions of the same comedies sans laugh track, and what's interesting is the flow of the show and the humor loses something without them.
Humans are generally programmed to laugh when other people are laughing. Observe that when you laugh a baby will laugh, even though they have no idea what they are laughing about.
The reason the pacing is wrong without the laugh track is because they pause for the laugh track and awkwardly stare at each other like morons without it.
And sure, some things that have one can still be funny but I contend that is in spite of the laugh track, not because of it.
You're conflating "filmed live" with "filmed in front of an audience". Usually the two went together, but they're not the same. "Filmed live" means that scenes were filmed in real time, as the actors performed as they would perform a play. Not filmed one shot at a time and then edited together, as a single-camera show is filmed. Often there is in fact an audience in the studio, even though canned audience reactions might be added.
Cheers started saying "filmed before a live studio audience". Because the viewers thought the laugh track was too loud. In reality the show was that funny
So in other news, I'm not very good at counting crowds, but there are some massive-- and I mean massive protests in the UK (and Ireland) protests occurring with some eye popping crowds. According to some of the posts I'm seeing, those crowd numbers are being "disputed" by the media. I think that some people are estimating the crowds to be ~1 million in strength, but the usual-suspect corporate media is reporting 100,000. Again, I'm not good at estimating crowds, but it seems to me that the numbers might be closer to the 1,000,000 # than the 100,00 #. So I did a google search on crowd size of the protests, and Generative AI (always your first hit on a google search) said the largest protest in London was against the Iraq war which "drew 1 to 2 million". It mentioned in passing the "far-right" rally which has only drawn 100,000. Ahh, keep being you, ChatGPT. Why we would ever deny our young people the benefits of AI-based psycho therapy, I know not.
The first result for Google AI is often demonstrably wrong, and I know this because I've asked it questions on things I am intimately familiar with.
Anyone that relies on AI for an answer to anything is basically putting their faith in Reddit, which is exactly as idiotic as it sounds.
And yes, I am fully aware AI systems are not specifically trained on Reddit but they are trained on the garbage that morons have written along with works of human genius. The former far outweighs the latter.
Ahh not wanting your country destroyed and your children raped is now far right
So a lot of people are being outed and fired for celebrating the murder of Charlie Kirk. I have no problem with that. If you publicly post anything you better be ready for the blowback. And if one of these ghouls was on my payroll they'd be picking up there last partial paycheck. But. If someone says I never liked this guy and I think he was an evil force and a cancer on the body politic and declines to offer prayers for the widow I will defend their right to say that. I might still fire them but only if their notoriety is bad for business. If on the other hand they advocate for violence against any individual or group of individuals they have crossed the line into incitement that is not protected by 1A and should not be tolerated by government or private actors. But first principles still apply.
I don't really care what happens to them. It's the price of a society where the average person overshares to the point of extreme narcissism.
Yeah, that’s a big part of it. It simply shows a lack of self control and intelligence, besides the moral aspect. I don’t want stupid people working for me.
Plus they have been encouraged to say stuff like this with no repercussions for the last decade.
Just like with Marv Albert, it's not their first time biting someone.
I could say the same about the kooks on the right. For how many years have there been radicals on the right pining for civil war and looking for some excuse to start shooting progressives? How many people cheered Kyle Rittenhouse not merely because he defended property against a violent mob, but because he succeeded in killing a progressive?
By progressive you mean pedophile. Easy distinction to miss.
No, shit for brains, it was because he successfully defended HIMSELF against a murderous mob.
Oh I think it's more than that. I think a fair number of you were gleeful that he killed a progressive, whether or not it was in self-defense.
No one is interested in your guesses about what they think.
One of whom had pedo convictions on his record, but hey, they both start with P.
Except you can’t, because you had to bullshit about Rittenhouse to even try to make your asinine point.
Jeff could benefit from some lessons in nuance from this post.
Funny, I was thinking the same about you. I actually agree with most of this. I particularly appreciate how Gaear is taking the effort to distinguish between people who are genuinely "celebrating", and people who are merely expressing opinions with which he disagrees. Now go to that "charlie's murderers" list and try to make that same distinction.
Oh yes, Jeffy, let's slice this onion as thin as we can get.
LEGAL. LEGAL immigrant, and later naturalized citizen.
The American Dream exists for anyone who wants to follow the rules. Don't, and it's a free trip to CECOT. It's important that the border jumping scumbags know that.
Not only that he was an actual refugee, fleeing the shithole that Cuba was descending into.
Whoooosh
MSNBC panelist says “we are at war” and urges viewers to pick up weapons while Jasmine Crockett nods in agreement.
MSNBC is promoting this rhetoric days after Charlie Kirk’s assassination.
- AF Post
Comcast reportedly told their petulant child MSDNC to stfu. Looks like more need to be given the opportunity to start their own network.
Team Red was shouting "THIS IS WAR" just minutes after he died.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/after-charlie-kirks-killing-maga-world-mourns-war/story?id=125483603
[...]
When, not if but when, some Trumpian reject murders a prominent Democrat, not only will Trumpians cheer, but they’ll say it’s ok because Democrats did it first. And when they get canceled in the way they are canceling the people they hate, they will cry about how conservatives are always being unjustly persecuted.
Lol. You ignore what has happened to whine about what might happen.
Idiot.
Not ignoring anything. Just pointing out the indisputable fact that whenever team left does something outrageous and unforgivable, team right does the same thing and says it’s perfectly ok because, well, you know the excuse. And then attacks anyone who doesn’t like what they did with accusations of hypocrisy.
You need to stop projecting, Sarc.
sarcasmic 3 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
When, not if but when, some Trumpian reject murders a prominent Democrat
sarcasmic 2 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Not ignoring anything. Just pointing out the indisputable fact
We can add “indisputable facts” to words sarc doesn’t understand.
He is fucking retarded.
That’s how reality works sarc. For fucks sake, it’s the entire basis for the Overton window shifting.
Maybe we should be extolling the virtues of the left NOT pushing the window further?
For example when it comes out the firing of people over the Kirk murder weren’t just private companies doing private things, but a result of a pressure campaign from the White House, team right will say it’s ok because of Twitter and Facebook. And then accuse anyone who says anything about it of being hypocrites for being ok with what the Biden administration did.
Trumpians are as predictable as the tides.
Not sure you consider me a “Trumpian”, but I can say that if it comes out that the WH put pressure on these companies, I’ll be right here saying that’s fucking bullshit.
I bet they don’t.
"No mercy. Jail every single Leftist who makes a threat of political violence," Loomer added.
So, you don't agree that those who make specific threats of violence should be prosecuted?
He did on J6 when trump said to march peacefully.
Just an idle threat on social media? No. And that is not the constitutional standard either. If that threat was coupled with some specific plan or attempt to commit harm, then yes. But not an idle threat alone.
"the threat need not be physically carried out to violate the law; the mere act of making the threat can lead to prosecution...The actual intent to carry out the threat is not required..."
https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/threatening-public-officials
That is specifically about threatening public officials. The original Laura Loomer quote was about a person "who makes a threat of political violence", presumably not necessarily directed at a public official. And, of course, Charlie Kirk was not a "public official". EVEN STILL, according to the law as presented in your source, an idle threat on social media isn't enough to break the law, NOR SHOULD IT BE.
If all that was necessary to break the law was for a person to just say that they wished a public official was dead, then about 1/3rd of the Reason commenters would be in jail by now.
What part of "the actual intent to carry out the threat is not required" do you not understand, moron?
"The original Laura Loomer quote was about a person 'who makes a threat of political violence'"
Right. That's why I responded with a law specifically about a type of political violence.
"If all that was necessary to break the law was for a person to just say that they wished a public official was dead..."
Typical Jeffy straw man. No one is saying that is all that is necessary.
Once again. Laura Loomer wanted to jail a leftist "who makes a threat of political violence". Not limited to what the law required, not limited to public officials only. The law has a much higher standard than that. So no I don't think people who make idle threats on social media should be prosecuted, the law doesn't permit them to be prosecuted, but Laura Loomer does want them prosecuted. Do you? Apparently so.
Oh Chumby, where are you to police this comment?
I just posted a law that allows for idle threats of political violence posted on social media to be prosecuted. Everyone can see that. You are beclowning yourself, as usual.
Referring to Team blue - rainbow cult battalion just having assassinated a voice on their side. Nobody on the left has been assassinated by some Team red activist in recent months much less the campaign by rainbow cult targeting schools and now Carlie Kirk. Big tummy dummy, you don’t get it.
Team blue calling for and engaging in violence against the right. Instead of calling that out, you are complaining that people on the right are correctly identifying it and you have even attempted to justify those actions. Only sarc and pluggo are buying your bullshit big tummy dummy.
Are you claiming that Charlie Kirk was pro-LGBTQ rights?
https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/charlie-kirk-political-views-guns-lgbt-trump-b2824580.html
When it comes to burning flags in public, I agree - provided the property owner agrees and the flags are the property of those doing the burning. On the rest, however, I don't think citing Leviticus approvingly qualifies as "pro-LGBTQ".
Charlie debated and rainbow cult member assassinated him. Again, you completely miss the plot.
How do you know Tyler Robinson is gay?
His male tranny lover told authorities.
All we know is what Governor Cox has said. You may be right but I think I will wait until I hear Tyler Robinson's side of the story.
Investigators told the press. Also reported by a neighbor.
You just can't accept that the T part of the alphabet group was involved in this in multiple ways. I'd suggest pulling your head out of your ass, but I think it's so far up there you can see your lungs and dark heart.
Team blue calling for and engaging in violence against the right.
Every single fucking day around here, there are commenters calling for progressives to be killed, prosecuted, or rounded up into camps, and that was before Charlie Kirk was murdered. And to my knowledge the only one who received any sort of meaningful pushback on this was Nardz, before he left, because he took it waaaaay too far.
I am not the Reason Comment Board Hall Monitor so it is not my job to police everyone else's comments. BUT if you are going to claim that I have some obligation to police other people's comments, then I will ask the same of you.
I see people asking team blue rainbow cultists to consider MAID. That would be a conversation between those mentally ill folks and their healthcare professional.
Convenient that you only push back when it is one direction. Keeping being a cheap team blue shill.
I advocate for the NAP and did so in that very thread, so fuck you with another bullshit “boaf sidez” attempt.
Convenient that you only push back when it is one direction.
I'm not the Reason Comment Board Hall Monitor. I push back when I feel like it. SO DO YOU. If you condemn me for not "pushing back" enough, then look in the mirror for the next soul to condemn.
I advocate for the NAP
lol that's funny
Yours is conveniently in one direction.
The rest is your pathological lying trying to chaff/redirect away from what you are.
Yours is conveniently in one direction.
I'm just following your example.
You’re not. More fibs by you. It is what you do.
Please tell me the number of times you have criticized Kuckland for demanding that progressives kill themselves.
Please tell me the number of times you have criticized "SCOTUS" for demanding that progressives be rounded up into camps and murdered.
Heck in this very discussion, please tell me where you decided to criticize Vernon Depner for suggesting that homeless people should be euthanized.
You've done none of this, yet you expect me to be some type of hall monitor. I'm not, but if you expect me to be, then what's fair is fair. Time for you to do some gatekeeping.
There's a difference between telling someone to off themselves and advocating that someone off them. If you're incapable of differentiating the two, then you are a moron. Now go take a long walk off a short pier.
You posted the Utah gov asking for dialogue when a rainbow cult member assassinated someone that had been doing that and you have never shown promoting that except in one direction. You called for it but have never demonstrated it except one way. Didn’t call Welch out on it nor the recent post by MSDNC.
I have challenged those on the right here for it but don’t do it each and every time. As for someone suggesting you seek out MAID, I already explained that is between you and your healthcare provider.
But it isn’t about me, it is about your gross hypocrisy where you’re only doing it when it defends team blue.
Here's what I think.
I think that if Gavin Newsom and Chuck Schumer were murdered tomorrow, you would be cheering. Literally cheering. But you would not say so openly, you would let everyone else cheer while you sat by and silently agreed. But you wouldn't condemn it.
I for one have condemned the murder and condemned those who genuinely did "celebrate" his murder. But I draw the line at people who only offered mocking or sarcastic comments. They were not "celebrating" even though your team wants to lump them all into the same batch and punish them all equally. I think that is a braver and more principled position that you would ever take.
You pushed for folks to dialogue when you have never invoked the NAP when violent comments by the left have been made. You’re being a hippocrite.
You seem to be projecting. Good luck with pushing your broken narrative.
Keeping being a cheap team blue shill.
And once again, for the millionth time:
One doesn't have to be on Team Blue to object to Team Red. Team Red is becoming far more totalitarian than Team Blue ever was even back in the "peak woke" days. Team Red is demanding social conformity and is weaponizing patriotism to mean only members of their tribe can be "true patriots". One doesn't have to be some proggie librul to object to that.
Social conformity = don’t assassinate people.
Nope it goes way beyond that. Your team's social conformity is to demand that everyone feel as much grief as you all feel with Charlie Kirk's death, and those who don't demonstrate the required amount of grief, by, say, making mocking or sarcastic comments, are labeled as "celebrating his death" and canceled from polite society. That is your social conformity that you encourage.
Another strawman. You’ve been hanging out with sarc. Nobody needs to express any grief.
Some singing the praise of his assassination have been given more freedom by their employers based on each employer’s decision.
Yes we know - making sarcastic or mocking comments is the same as "singing the praises of his murder". Asshole.
Another strawman. Did you let sarc run your account?
Not a strawman. Look at the "charlie's murderers" site. They include lots of comments that were just sarcastic or mocking, not "celebrating". Yet they are all lumped together. Do you agree or disagree with this decision?
Read those comments. Given your own malignancy, I'm not surprised you think they're just a joke.
You are using a strawman. And it was already explained to you. I’m not explaining it again. I’m not here to help the retarded.
If it's a strawman, then you should be agreeing with me that those who only posted mocking or sarcastic comments should not be lumped in together with those who posted comments that genuinely "celebrated his murder". Do you?
It isn’t my website nor am I their employer. FFS.
Copout. You can offer your opinion without owning the website.
Should those who only offered mocking or sarcastic comments, be treated the same as those who genuinely celebrated his murder?
Already answered. Jesus fucking Christ. You are particularly numb.
You won't give a straight answer because you want to try to have it both ways.
I’m not here to help retards. You and a few others are provided information and then can’t remember it. Your problem of basic mental capacity isn’t my problem. Do better and stop wasting people’s time.
But it’s clear you’re on team blue, Demon Jeffy.
More news from the Pro-Life Party:
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/5502547-fox-news-host-apologizes-homeless-remark/
At least Kilmeade apologized. So he has that going for him.
Putting them in concentration camps would be sufficient, but, obviously, MAID would be much less expensive.
Hey Chumby, why aren't you policing this comment? Do you really think the homeless should be put in concentration camps, or euthanized? What do you have to say to Vernon Depner about his offensive comment?
I don’t think Fox News hosts should be put in concentration camps or offered MAID. Interestingly though, Matt Welch supported their murders.
Right. Just as I thought. You criticize me for only criticizing "in one direction" yet you do the exact same thing.
I see it differently. Unlike you, I’m not a pathological liar so that likely is the root of your problem.
I think you are an authoritarian, a bigot, and a liar. That you claim to "support the NAP" is laughable on its face. I think you would be on the forefront to not only ban gay marriage, but to shove gays back into the closet. You might even support criminalizing sodomy again, who knows. (But only homosexual sodomy - heterosexual sodomy is totally fine!)
Sarc level retardation. Keep flailing.
Where am I wrong? Be specific. You certainly seem very homophobic.
The entire post. Keep being sarc level broken.
Those in Canaduh will have to wait until 2027.
https://globalnews.ca/news/10265616/maid-expansion-delayed-2027/
But if they can't wait, there is always the enlightend free healthcare in Europe.
https://nrlc.org/nrlnewstoday/2025/04/dutch-euthanasia-for-mental-illness-surges-60-including-teen-with-autism/
Is this wrong Jeffy?
Here is the Republican version of "toning down the rhetoric":
https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/gop-congresswoman-says-its-our-job-to-tone-down-the-rhetoric-before-suggesting-democrats-are-evil-and-accusing-them-of-burning-down-cities
On one hand:
And then in the very next breath:
Yeah, let's tone down the rhetoric. Oh by the way, the other side is evil.
Everything she said was correct.
You just proved his point.
Cite?
Jesus fucking Christ. Little kids were murdered by a deranged tranny. A small woman was butchered by a repeat violent offender in the name of social justice. A political commentator you don’t like was publicly assassinated by another lefty loon convinced that the tranny cult is being persecuted by words.
ALL OF THIS has a political ideology at the center of it. It’s yours. You don’t have to like it, but if you’re gonna be all like, “but team red, waaaah” you will rightly be met with hostility. There are no comparables here. I don’t know how this could be any more clear.
Asshole.
“One side holds a vigil, and the other side stokes the flames and burns cities”
This is unequivocally true. Sorry you don’t like it when Democrats get called out for their malfeasance.
The 1933 Cuban Revolution was led by Fulgencio Batista. Today, ICE would kidnap Desi Arnaz and deport him to South Sudan. But back then there were no limits on immigration from Cuba or anywhere else in the Western Hemisphere. We should reinstate that law.
Not enough illegal alien rapefugees in NYC raping corpses on the NYC subway?
“…..no limits….”
No.
Idiot.
Man, I missed all the good name calling here today.
Fuck you all!
https://psychcentral.com/disorders/treating-pedophilia#aversion-therapy
It’s not name calling to point out that you were banned for posting a link to child porn.
Utah Gov. Cox:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/utah-governor-alleged-kirk-shooter-cooperating-authorities/story?id=125552756
That's actually really good. We could stand to consider following this example.
Yes, Jeffy, you and your side should consider following that example.
What Charlie was doing when he was assassinated by a rainbow cult member. Missed where you pushed back against the rhetoric by KAR and the team blue sock puppet brigade. Didn’t miss your attempts to recharachterize Kirk nor your boaf sidez attempt to chaff and redirect away from MSNBC calling for their side to arm in their war.
“where you pushed back against the rhetoric by KAR and the team blue sock puppet brigade”
Yeah that would have been a pretty easy way to earn a little bit of credibility on the topic. And we all know there was zero chance of it happening.
Boy, you sure are obsessed with the shooter's sexual orientation. I don't know if he is gay or straight, and frankly it doesn't matter.
Nothing to see here
- Team rainbow cult, again
Unsurprisingly, Chumby the homophobe is trying to smear all gays as somehow all guilty for Charlie Kirk's murder. We don't even know if Tyler Robinson is gay, but that doesn't matter to Chumby.
Strawman
Then WTF is up with this "team rainbow cult" nonsense? If Tyler Robinson (or whoever the shooter really is) is solely responsible for Charlie Kirk's death, then what does it matter if the shooter is gay or not? What does "team rainbow cult" have to do with any of it?
Nothing to see here
- Team rainbow cult, again
Remember, Jeffy loves when pedos get to groom kids at drag queen story time.
You seem very concerned about his sexual orientation.
Beacause the murderer was gay, and that motivated his animus to Kirk who espoused the biblical view that homosexuality is a sin. Him being gay was the literal motive.
It was? I thought it was because he hated free speech.
"Kirk who espoused the biblical view that homosexuality is a sin."
You are really bad at this.
If you could only get your way and stop people from saying things you and the killer find offensive, Kirk would not have drawn the ire of a mentally unwell gay man.
I think that is an extrapolation at this point. The killer's motives are rather murky at this point in time. He could have been a left-wing radical, he could have been a far-right Groyper, he could have been a militant gay activist, he could have been just a disturbed kid who spent too much time in the darkest corners of the Internet. We don't know much for certain.
^imagine being this stupid.
People will continue to commit atrocities as long as they continue to believe absurdities.
Evil demon lies some more.
It’s telling that you think all LGB’s are part of the rainbow cult…
“….and frankly it doesn’t matter.”
The fuck it don’t! Ask little tyler if it matters. His perceived persecution was his entire motivation!
What the fuck is wrong with you? I usually roll my eyes at the fifty center accusations around here, but there is really no understanding your level of obtuseness. It can’t be real.
What an asshole.
From wikipedia
"A lifelong Republican, Arnaz was deeply patriotic about the United States. In his memoirs, he wrote that he knew of no other country in the world where "a sixteen-year-old kid, broke and unable to speak the language" could achieve the successes that he had"
See, that's the real reason why he'll fade while movies about illegals suffering in the United States will be made annually.
That, and the fact that Arnaz was a legal immigrant rather than an illegal alien.
Because there were no limits on immigration from the Western Hemisphere back then. You just went to a US Embassy or Consulate in your country of birth, filled out an application, and unless you were a revolutionary, a criminal, or likely to become a public charge, you got issued a visa that entitled you to live in the US permanently and apply for citizenship in five years.
Restoring that law would end the "migrant crisis". But Charlie Kirk didn't want that. He thought that today's Desi Arnaz wannabes were "replacing" White people. Never mind that a lot of Cubans, Puerto Ricans, Columbians, Venezuelans, and others from all over Latin America are White. The President of Mexico is even Jewish, with four grandparents born in Europe.
Times have changed. We can’t afford all the worlds poverty anymore. Get with the times.
Progressives: always living in the past. Haha.
"Because there were no limits on immigration from the Western Hemisphere back then. You just went to a US Embassy or Consulate in your country of birth, filled out an application, and unless you were a revolutionary, a criminal, or likely to become a public charge, you got issued a visa that entitled you to live in the US permanently and apply for citizenship in five years."
Is there anyone beyond US gov't schools 3rd grade level who might possibly believe this steaming pile of shit?
“wannabes were "replacing" White people.”
Maybe because we weren’t importing millions of people every year?
“and others from all over Latin America are White.”
Oh, so they aren’t POC’s anymore? Or is it dependent on the argument you’re trying to make?
Jeffs allies dress up as Kirk assassin and trample memorial.
https://x.com/AutismCapital/status/1967306243317617148
A confrontation occurred between a group of people holding a vigil for Charlie Kirk and two men attempting to disrupt the gathering, as one of the men displayed a sign stating that Charlie Kirk deserved it; this incident took place yesterday on #Chicago's north side.
- Live Leak
yeAh BuT dO tHEy deSeRVe tO loSE tHeIar jOB?
Watching a new set of videos of folks terminated for horrible comments celebrating the assassination of Kirk.
It’s so fun. Especially now that I know it’s enraging Demon Jeffy so much.
The team blue shill is seething that people are being fired because their employers find out they celebrated that someone who debates was assassinated.
Oh, haven’t you heard? Trump might be pressuring private businesses to fire people.
Sounds legit. Sarc said so. Lol.
But he debated college kids. Disgusting!
One hurdle to overcome was that My Favorite Husband was based on a series of published stories about a couple named...Cugat. Not a bandleader, just coincidence.
So Jeffy—do you have anything to say about Desi Arnaz?
He’s too busy trying to defend team blue piles of shit that celebrated the assassination and chaff/redirect away from the rainbow cult accused assassin.
the rainbow cult accused assassin
Isn't "the assassin" enough? Why is the "rainbow cult" adjective needed?
Why are you trying to avoid mentioning him being a member of the rainbow cult?
Why does it matter?
Surely you don't believe in guilt by association, do you? That's just a strawman! Right?
If he really is the murderer, what does it matter if he is a gay murderer? Would he get an extra gay firing squad or something?
Poor Demon Jeffy and his rainbow cult.
Lol. Precisely because you’d like everyone to ignore it.
Oh, and because it’s central to what happened.
Asshole.
Lol. Poor Demon Jeffy and his rainbow cult.
Not really. I understand that he was a womanizer and that he didn't treat Lucy all that well. I appreciate that he was able to develop the fledgling TV industry at the time. But I always thought that Lucy was the main brains behind the operation.
What I've heard is that she had little idea what was funny in parts she played. She was the business brain of Desilu, but not its creative brain.
It was Lucy who financed the Star Trek series, right? Ultimately more successful in the long run than "I Love Lucy".
Well Desi Arnaz crossed the Rubicon and got more pussy than Frank Fucking Sinatra. That was not authorized by the Hollywood elite and Frank was pissed. When Bob Dylan was looking for a back up band he stumbled on a bunch of ner do wells who hilariously called themselves The Band. Bob negotiated with Robbie Robertson and promised not money or fame. He only promised more pussy than Frank Fucking Sinatra ever got. The whole band signed the dotted line. I'm not sure today's youngsters understand how much pussy Frank Fucking Sinatra was getting back in the day and the challenge it created for guys like Arnaz. Lacking a statistical analysis by the Cato institute it's likely we will never know who got more or less pussy than Frank Fucking Sinatra. But there's no question that Desi was a contender. But yeah let's argue about camera angles and ignore the elephant in the room.
Sounds like he had some ‘splaining to do.
The Band went on to become an iconic musical force all their own. They had numerous hits on their own including, The weight, The Night They drove Ole Dixie Down and When I paint My masterpiece.
Music From The Big Pink propelled them to success.
The Movie, The Last Waltz was a farewell to a great band.
Desilu Studios owned a large lot in Culver City, also associated with Desilu were Red Studios and Ren-Mar in Hollywood .
The studio lot in Culver City is where Hogan's Heroes and Andy Griffith was filmed. Others such as the Untouchables, Mission Impossible and Star Trek. Mannix and The Lucy Show were part of Desilu Productions.
Not bad for a Cuban immigrant..... And a crazy redhead.
Although Desi had left the company it was Desilu that also green lighted the original Star Trek