All Activity

Is this you acknowledging that Kimmel didn’t claim the shooter was MAGA?

IDK about that but Iowa is willing to trade @Jimmy Cinnabon for @PortaJohn.

Uh, most murderers don’t have many followers before becoming murders. Gaining notoriety is often a reason they become murderers. Thomas Crooks being one possible example. The follower discussion was more about comments people make. With 300+ million people in the country, you can find a couple hundred people saying just about anything. But there are really very few that anyone has ever heard of that said despicable things about Kirk’s death. And Jimmy Kimmel is not among them. Of course his fame is why him being cancelled is such a big story, verifying that follower count does matter.

Affiliates made their decision fcc commissioner spoke (defended/applauded the affiliates) abc suspends Kimmel. numerous articles I read including USA Today are using “sounded like a threat” not that it was a threat. Not to mention that the fcc isn’t even sure it can follow thru on what your sayin is a threat.

Snyder was certainly playing by Calvinball rules until he was caught

Imagine saying you were arrested on the porch with a black family during a civil rights protest……. And were lying about that?

Imagine if a republican pretended to be an Indian.

Since these are pro athletes on pro athlete contracts it's time to start talking trades like a real league: Would Hawkeye RTC and CKWC make a deal: Spencer Lee for Real Woods? Former medalist for a current medalist at the toughest weight. Good trade for both sides...

The Benny Podcast was published at 2:17PM Eastern time yesterday. The news articles that reported Kimmel being table off the air started appearing about an hour after that. The article you linked to to start this thread was published at 3:43pm. It is theoretically possible that the affiliates had made their decision before the podcast was published, but the decision was made public after the threats were made public. It is inappropriate for the FCC chair to make the threats. It either gives the wrong impression to the public or it chills free speech. Neither should be goal.

Imagine if a white private high school liberal college educated person talked like they were from the hood like Jc does.

Honor system, without going back. If you actually read the post, can you roughly breakdown my explanation? Then tell me why I would wrong with that approach?

It’s morally reprehensible for a highly educated African American woman to deliberately adopt a “ghetto” speech or persona to pander for the black vote, because it undercuts the dignity and intelligence of her own community — the African American community has made real, measurable gains in education (for example, nearly 27–30 percent of Black adults over 25 hold at least a bachelor’s degree, with Black women often outpacing men in attainment.

I was asking TPT.

My. Name. Is. Neo!

Sounds more like a Zahid problem than an Ed problem...

Maybe instead of asking why I “talk down” to people, you should consider whether it’s coming from a mix of trying to be precise and careful — not from assuming I know more. If the tone feels off, I can adjust it, but being challenged doesn’t automatically make someone less smart. Let’s keep this about the ideas, not about who sounds smarter.

Ole jazz hands still thinks he’s a manly man that scares conservatives.

So your conclusion is that there is nothing wrong or harmful. Because at no point did you prove any of the aforementioned points. Present evidence JC does any of these things frequently enough to rise to a harmful or unproductive level. Seems she got all your attention.

Kash has shown; beyond any doubt, the last ten days what everyone who could think with logic and/or without MAGA glasses already knew….he has no business running the FBI.

It took you 4 paragraphs to explain why you try to talk down to people? Maybe you aren't as smart as you think?

Haha, thank you for the flattery and the gaslighting. Trying to tell me my lived experience. Not surprised tho. Conceding a point is rare regardless of how obvious. Better luck next time.

Intellectual flattening erodes nuance and critical thinking. When one systematically oversimplifies complex topics, one risks degrading the audience’s capacity to grapple with ambiguity, evaluate trade-offs, and understand complications. What may be efficient in the short term becomes impoverishing long term: the audience internalizes a model in which issues are binary, reductive, or laced with black-and-white moral overtones, rather than multivalent, contingent, subject to empirical uncertainty. Manipulative potential and rhetorical distortion. “Dumbing down” isn’t just pedagogically neutral. It can serve as a rhetorical device that strips away qualification, caveats, and complexity so that one’s message becomes more palatable or emotionally resonant—but also more misleading. Constituents may be misled or misinformed (even if well intended), because they lack access to the underlying subtleties. Simplification for sound bites can become distortion for persuasion. Undermining of democratic agency. Democracy presumes that citizens are capable of making informed judgments, that they can understand complexities of policy, trade-offs, unintended consequences. If political discourse is persistently simplified, then the citizenry may become passive consumers of pre-packaged ideas rather than active, thoughtful participants. This threatens authentic consent, accountability, and informed decision-making. Educational hypocrisy and inconsistency. If coaches or politicians sometimes “dumb things down,” it may be defensible in certain contexts, but if it becomes routine, it reveals a disinterest in fostering growth, a tendency to condescend rather than elevate. In coaching, the goal is to bring athletes up to a higher level—not simply to make them temporarily feel good or “understandable.” In politics, likewise, the goal should (ideally) be to elevate public understanding. Loss of trust when oversimplification is exposed. When simplifications are later revealed to have omitted important facts, or when their implications turn out to be false, credibility suffers. Constituents may feel deceived, manipulated, or infantilized. A reputation gains value when the communicator shows both respect for the audience’s capacity and willingness to engage honestly with complexity. Alternative: tiered communication rather than permanent dumbing down. Rather than permanently “dumbing down,” a more sustainable strategy is to layer communication: use simple, relatable explanations as entry points, but also provide access to more elaborate expositions for those who want or need them. In coaching, this might be giving a simple metaphor first, then a more technical breakdown. In politics, this might mean having sound bites, but also policy documents, town halls, written materials. That preserves integrity, fosters learning, and respects the intelligence of the audience. Conclusion: While there is merit in tailoring language and complexity to match an audience’s background (to avoid confusion, disengagement, or inefficiency), there remains a moral and intellectual duty to preserve truth, nuance, and opportunity for growth. Overreliance on simplified frames or sound bites may secure short-term clarity or popularity, but risk longer-term damage to collective understanding, trust, and democratic health.

Nah I’m making fun of you for saying people that don’t have a lot of followers aren’t popular enough to know whom they are. Are you really that slow ?