Category Archives: culture

Thoughts on Kimmel

Is this a free speech crisis?

Most people have a line for how far is too far when it comes to matters of speech. The line that the US government drew in 1969 was “incitement to imminent lawless action” (we usually say “incitement of violence”. It would be very rare to find someone who disagrees with the notion that this type of speech should be illegal, as qualifying speech would need for the speaker to intend to incite unlawful behavior, know or intend for it to happen imminently, and for the speech to be likely to produce that unlawful action. Most people agree that would be a bad thing to allow.

In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, free speech has come to the forefront of many peoples’ minds. People have lost their jobs for posting disgusting statements to social media, or for saying uncouth and/or untrue things on television. Many on the left accuse the right of engaging in “cancel culture,” an interesting accusation from those who claimed there was no such thing while doing it to the right. Jimmy Kimmel was the latest to face an interruption to his job (as I understand it, his show is indefinitely suspended, not officially ‘cancelled’ as of yet), after making a statement during his show. I want to take a look at this example in detail as since it happened its gotten a lot of attention, and I’ve noticed a lot of people expressing worry over free speech in America in light of this.

To begin, let’s talk about free speech. When we say free speech, we can be talking about one of two things. First, there is the first amendment right, what we might call the right to free speech, or free speech under the law. This would mean that the government cannot arrest or take legal action against you on the basis of your speech (barring the incitement exception mentioned above). Under the law, you are allowed to say whatever you want, no matter how wrong or gross it is. Second is what we might call a culture of free speech. This would be a culture that is open to the expression of ideas and dialogue, where people can say what they want without fear of reprisal from employers, co-workers, family, friends, acquaintances, etc. A free speech absolutist in this sense might say that someone should be able to say truly whatever they want and suffer no consequence as a result. That person is very rare, as nigh everyone has a line where at the least they personally would cut off contacts with a person who expressed an exceptionally depraved opinion.

So which of these types of free speech are we talking about here, or are we talking about both? For the most part, both the “cancel culture” of the last few years and the recent Kirk-related firings have been pretty clearly of the latter variety. Employers have chosen to fire their employees based on things they said which the employer does not approve of. In the vast majority of these cases, I don’t think anyone would argue these are violations of the right to free speech. However, in the case of Jimmy Kimmel, people do seem to feel that it is a violation, and so it might be worthwhile to take a look at exactly what is going on in this instance.

It was reported by multiple outlets on the evening of September 17 that Kimmel’s show was suspended indefinitely after he had made comments regarding the Kirk assassination the previous nights. On Tuesday night he said the following: “We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.” While he made a few other comments on the preceding night, this one seems to be the heart of the matter. The next day after people were already in line waiting to be let in to be part of the live audience, Disney made the call to suspend the show indefinitely.

There were a few factors at play in the decision. To start, Nexstar Communications and Sinclain Broadcast Group, each of which own a number of ABC affiliate stations, announced they would be pulling Kimmel’s show from broadcast on their stations. It was shortly after Nexstar’s announcement that Disney announced the suspension. Additionally, Hollywood Reporter stated that advertiser calls also were beginning to come in. Between pulled ads and the show being dark on perhaps the majority of their affiliates anyway, they felt they needed to take action. The final player in this is the FCC, and I think this is what’s making people feel like this is a “right to free speech” issue. So, here is what happened. Brendan Carr appeared on Benny Johnson’s show and made a few statements that apply at least in part to Kimmel. The first was that there “is a very concerted effort to try to lie to the American people” about Kirk’s assassination and Kimmel’s statements played into that. He mentions that to maintain a broadcast license, stations need to be operating in the public interest. He says they can do it “the easy way or the hard way”, and that either stations can clean up their own act, or the FCC will need to get to work, and he specifically mentions Kimmel by name in that regard. The main thrust of Brendan Carr’s argument is that the intentional distortion of news is inappropriate for a broadcast television show, because it is against the public interest to do so. So if you feel this is a first amendment issue, this is the crux of it.

In terms of what actually happened, the FCC chairman indicated the FCC might take some sort of action. Following this and affiliates and advertisers pulling out, ABC dropped the show. Let’s suppose that this hadn’t happened, and the affiliates and advertisers stay on board and Disney tells the FCC chairman to stuff it. It’s all conjecture, but its easy to see a scenario play out where the FCC imposes some sort of fine or challenge to license renewal (Carr wasn’t clear on exactly what action they might take, but these are things the FCC has done in the past) due to public interest not being served. These actions would likely be challenged in court and maybe if established law is not clear enough, it could potentially have wound up at the Supreme Court level, and we’d get an official decision on whether or not it falls under first amendment protection. However, I don’t think it would get that far, because I don’t think the FCC could exist at all if this sort of thing is under first amendment protection. 

If you think that “serves the public interest” is a vague requirement that could easily be used to engage in censorship of speech, you’re not alone. There have been those who criticize the FCC’s regulatory powers as a form of censorship since it’s creation. So, it seems, the argument to be had here is whether or not the FCC should exist, as determining whether or not something is in the public interest is intrinsically in opposition to free speech, as a broadcaster would by definition not be allowed to say something on air that is against the public interest in the view of the FCC. Personally, I’d be all for abolishing the FCC, as it is just one of many government bodies that I really don’t think we need. You’re free to disagree of course, but if you do, I don’t think you can object to the situation with ABC and Jimmy Kimmel. If the FCC can legally exist, then definitionally there must be an exception to free speech in regard to broadcast speech that they discern to be outside/against the public interest. And the thing is, what Carr said wasn’t isolated to Kimmel’s show, it seems clear that while he had Kimmel in mind, he is seeing a broader issue that he believes the FCC should address. Whether that’s good or bad depends on your perspective I suppose, but I certainly don’t think this is new. The FCC has always had this power.

On some level in the very near future this is all going to be immaterial if it isn’t already. The FCC is a dinosaur, a creature of a bygone era that will soon exist only in our memory. Traditional television is hanging by a thread, and we’ve largely already moved on to internet-based media. The fact is, we’re no longer bound by limited broadcast frequencies that limit how many people can get their voice out there. Anyone with a camera, microphone, and an internet connection has the ability to “broadcast” their voice to anyone who wants to listen. And as it’s not taking place in those regulated airwaves, the FCC has no say. Nothing is stopping Jimmy Kimmel from starting his own independent show and broadcasting it on Youtube, or Rumble, or X, or some other platform, or even his own platform. There’s even a clear example of someone leaving broadcast news and becoming even more popular in Tucker Carlson. Ultimately, this could in theory be good for Jimmy Kimmel, but that all depends on whether or not there is an audience that actually wants to hear what he has to say.

There’s a bit from a Hollywood Reporter article that is deserving of comment to my mind. Here’s the quote:

‘But let’s take a close look at this section: “….the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them….” 

As part of a sentence, this is so blurry that your eyes cross trying to get it. Kimmel doesn’t actually say “this kid” was “one of them.” You could read it a different way: Robinson wasn’t MAGA, and therefore MAGA is out there trying to characterize him as something else. Or even: Who knows if Robinson was or wasn’t MAGA, either way MAGA is trying to score points based on his politics.’

This is the statement that Kimmel was actually being asked by his employer to apologize for, and allegedly this read is his “clarification” of what he was saying that he was going to offer, without apology. In my view, this explanation is obtuse, what he said had a very clear implication that the killer was indeed someone from the MAGA camp. You absolutely cannot read it the way the writer of that article claims you can read it, unless you are just willfully making the words mean something to you other than what they clearly mean. My “eyes cross” only when I try to “get” this bizarre alternative explanation. The simple truth is, whether or not he intended to say it (something no one can possibly know for certain), he did say it, and that is exactly why he should correct it and apologize for it, either as a lie or as a misstatement. 

My own position is nuanced. Insofar as his employer is suspending him for being unwilling to correct and apologize for the factually incorrect statement he made, I am completely in support of his suspension. It is hard for me to say that I think Kimmel’s right to free speech under the first amendment has been violated because he still has the right to say whatever he wants. He is not himself facing a government fine or imprisonment because of his speech, he was removed from his show at the decision of his employer perhaps in part because of some implied pressure from the government. No one has a right to have their speech broadcast on television, or if I do have that right I’d like to know who I talk to so that I can have my own TV show that I am evidently owed. I don’t think the FCC should have regulatory power or exist at all, but it does. That pressure is the only thing that makes this murky at all, and its hard to say whether or not this same outcome would have happened without it. In that case, it would be a clear question over cultural free speech.

Cultural free speech is a whole other matter, and one I am likely to write about in the near future.

Darkness

Pull back from the darkness.

It’s so tempting to give into it, I know. It seems like the answer. Become a demon to defeat the demons.

But that way lies destruction. It’s the one ring. In destroying the evil, you will become the evil.

Remind yourself of that. Keep reminding yourself. Because if you forget, all is lost.

I’ve been waiting for my mind to clear since Wednesday… it’s still not fully clear. I got sucked into a Facebook argument for the first time in a long while and that didn’t really help. But I think I needed to say the thing that kicked it off. I don’t think just letting things go is working. Just let it go and keep the peace and then one day your friend cheers for your death… or at least justifies it for your murderer.

I wanted to wait also because at first I just felt rage. I felt the darkness pulling at me. And so I had to take a couple of days to pull out of it. To remind myself. And now I think I’m there. I think I can write something that might be helpful to someone.

I had been wanting to make a happier post about Kpop Demon Hunters, a movie that I never thought I would watch, and certainly never thought I would recommend. I don’t necessarily agree with every single element of the film – mainly there’s a bit of LGBT imagery, very subtle, but the filmmaker has confirmed that element. In my opinion, that’s the weakest bit of the story, tying into Rumi being half-demon. The movie unapologetically paints demons as being bad, the only one we’re led to have any sympathy for is a demonized human named Jinu. While the movie doesn’t expound on the nature of demons very much, it seems that demons are either DEMON demons or demonized humans. Since demons, and the demonic aspects of the demonized humans are clearly evil, some of what they do with Rumi (she’s half demon by birth, because her father was a demon (presumably a demonized human?) doesn’t really work. But I won’t get into it, because it doesn’t matter for my purposes, and I don’t want to give any big spoilers.

The movie is kind of a musical, there’s several songs and they all tie into the plot. If you haven’t seen it and want a total clean slate, stop reading, but there are only going to be what I consider to be very minor spoilers here. I’m going to share videos of 2 songs, because they’re directly relevant to what I want to talk about.

I guess I also should explain the basic premise of the movie. There’s a Kpop girl band called Huntrix, and the 3 ladies in it are a team of demon hunters. Essentially through their music they hold the demons at bay, barring them from our world – and sometimes they slash them up a bit with some sort of spiritual weapons should they get through. Gwi-Ma is sort of the king of demons, a Satan figure I suppose, and he sends Jinu and some other apparently demonized humans to form a Kpop boy band called the Saja Boys, and they’re what I’d consider the primary antagonists of the movie. So one of the songs I’ll share is from Huntrix, and the other the Saja Boys.

The first song is called Takedown. Here’s a link to the video, and I’ll reference some lyrics below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8Dr7vzMSVE

Like I said, I am going to keep the spoilers minor, and really only reference what I have to of the plot to make my point. When they’re writing this song, it’s controversial. Rumi feels uncomfortable with the lyrics because they’re full of hate.

“’Cause I see your real face and it’s ugly as sin
Time to put you in your place ’cause you’re rotten within
When your patterns start to show
It makes the hatred wanna grow outta my veins”

And if those words aren’t enough, we get this:

“A demon with no feelings, don’t deserve to live, it’s so obvious”

and

“I’ma cut you open, lose control, then rip out your heart
You’ll be beggin’ and cryin’, all of you dyin’”

Part of what makes this film as popular as it is is that the plot isn’t obviously explicitly about anything in the real world. You can look at the story and grasp on to points of meaning as they relate to you. That’s not to say that it has no message though, or that the message is totally relative. Because while I could apply the demons this song is talking about to the guy that murdered Charlie Kirk and the people that take joy in that; and you might apply the demons this song is talking about to be Donald Trump and MAGA, and I suppose me, the point of this song in the context of the film is that whoever you perceive the demons to be, hatred isn’t the right course of action. And in fact that hatred is going to be turned back against you to destroy you. I could get more explicit with the plot, but I think you should just watch it, and then you’ll understand. Like I said, it’s the ring. Maybe you’ll “win”, but in your victory you will become what you hate.

Now for song 2, this one is called “Your Idol”. I’ll probably quote most of the lyrics from this one, because what it’s talking about is really how the darkness gets in. To set the stage, as you’ll see when you watch the video, at this point the mask is off, they’re quite obviously demons, and the crowd is entranced. And let me tell you, at this point in time, there’s a lot of people entranced by demons with their masks off right now. The trouble is, when you’re entranced, you can’t see it.

https://youtu.be/cWppAbqm9I8?si=D4PXNJu85q9A70jj

“Keeping you in check, keeping you obsessed
Play me on repeat, endlessly in your head
Anytime it hurts, play another verse
I can be your sanctuary
Know I’m the only one right now
I will love you more when it all burns down
More than power, more than gold 
Yeah, you gavе me your heart, now I’m herе for your soul

I’m the only one who’ll love your sins
Feel the way my voice gets underneath your skin”

The biggest theme that runs through the film is the idea of shame, and that’s one of the key ways that demons control us. To quote St. Silouan the Athonite, “Understand two thoughts, and fear them. One says, “You are a saint,” and the other, “You won’t be saved.” Both of these thoughts are from the enemy, and there is no truth in them. But think this way: I am a great sinner, but the Lord is merciful. He loves people very much, and He will forgive my sins.”

How does this tie in to what I’ve been talking about? When you’re going after those demons, singing your takedown song, you’re thinking of yourself as a saint. And that’s what the demons will tell you. But then, as you give into the hate, as you become like them, eventually you’re going to have that aha moment and see what you’ve become, and then you’re going to feel shame. And that’s when their message turns into “no one could love you, God can’t save you, I’m all you have… ‘I’m the only one who’ll love your sins.’ Every word of it is a lie, but so often we believe it.

“Listen ’cause I’m preachin’ to the choir
Can I get the mic a little higher?
Gimme your desire
I can be the star you rely on (You rely on)
You’re lost in my daze, yeah, you can’t look away (Hey)
Don’t you know I’m here to save you?
Now we runnin’ wild
Yeah, I’m all you need, I’ma be your idol

Don’t let it show, keep it all inside
The pain and the shame, keep it outta sight
Your obsession feeds our connection
So right now give me all your attention”

There’s a lot to say here. Again, keep in mind these are demons, these are liars. It’s the darkness calling out on you. You can rely on me, don’t you know I’m here to save you? This is exactly how evil works, tricking us into thinking its good, tricking us into thinking its our way out. And then as we recognize our evil deeds, we become obsessed, thinking we can’t go back. It’s never too late to go back. It’s never too late to repent.

“Living in your mind now
Too late ’cause you’re mine now
I will make you free
When you’re all part of me
Listen ’cause I’m Preaching to the choir
Can I get the mic a little higher?
Gimme your desire
Watch me set your world on fire
You’re lost in my daze, yeah, you can’t look away
No one is coming to save you
Now we runnin’ wild
You’re down on your knees, I’ma be your idol”

Lies upon lies. You’re so far in there’s no turning back. “Too late, you’re mine now.” And then this is where the true despondency kicks in, when you realize the demon you’ve been listening to isn’t going to love you when the world burns down, it is itself what’s going to set the world on fire. It’s not going to save you, NO ONE is coming to save you – but that’s the final lie, because God still can.

Adding this is an edit, in hopes no one has read it yet. I forgot to say that another key theme of the film is isolation. The demons try to isolate you, to use the shame and fear to drive you apart. We have to connect. We have to stop seeing people as enemies. The truth is that you see demons where there are none, and if you even believe in actual demons, you’re probably completely unaware of them.

This is a really odd post, I recognize that, but I think it makes sense. It’s the most sense I can make of the world right now, anyway.

I don’t know the way out. God knows. But I do know the way to destruction, and that’s to run into the darkness, to embrace the demons.

Pull back from the brink.

Fly, you fools.

Flee the darkness, or it will consume you.

Something Is Wrong

Something is wrong.

Can you feel it?

It’s been this way for a long time now. Longer than either of us have been alive. Somewhere along the way the path was lost, yet the push forwarded persisted. No one wants to turn back, because to do so feels like regress. Yet, how does one reach their intended destination if they keep on walking in the wrong direction?

Perhaps I’m mistaken. Perhaps everything is fine. But then where does this sensation deep within me come from? And where does it come from in you? For I have no doubt you feel it too. Though this feeling is undeniable, it seems we should not be able to feel it at all – because even if something indeed is wrong, how should we know it, since it has been wrong ere we drew breath?

19th century German Protestant theologians posited that their society was the end of history. That is to say, they had reached the ultimate destination, the pinnacle of humanity. This Hegelian idea is something that C.S. Lewis referred to as chronological snobbery. From their perch at the end of (then current) time, they could rest assured knowing they knew better then those that came before, and not only did they know better, they were better. It’s a hubris we mostly share with them, for now we look back on them and think much the same about ourselves. Sure, they knew better than the people that came before them, but we know and are so much better than they were. Look at all we have accomplished.

Among the many things deeply ingrained in us by our culture, this is perhaps the strongest concept embedded in our psyche. Humanity gets better as we move forward in time. Stronger, bolder, smarter, more virtuous. After all, we can look into the past and see things like slavery. We’re better than that now. We can look back even more recently and see that computers that used to fill large rooms can now fit in our pockets, and are far more powerful to boot. It’s true, that we have come to see slavery as unthinkable is a great moral victory. It’s true also that our technology has greatly improved. But taking these two data points as indication that indeed humanity is on an unstoppable course toward betterment is a mistake.

Something is wrong… with us. With our society. With our culture.

You sit down at your computer, and you open a web browser. Perhaps you pull up the news from your favorite news feed, or perhaps you open X or BlueSky, or Facebook, or TikTok. You read or listen to a blurb about some defining issue of the day, Ukraine/Russia, Gaza/Israel, immigration, abortion, flag burning, Sydney Sweeney, or Cracker Barrel. You learn your opinion, because you must have an opinion on every single one of those things, and you have to express it loudly, because to not do so would in fact be an immoral act of omission. And then you hate. Particularly if it’s just a faceless name on your screen. Or maybe there’s a face, but it’s not one you know personally. They’re wrong, and not only that, they’re wicked. The same of course is true of the people you do know personally, but you try your best to mute such opinions from them so that you don’t have to think about it. Sure, you probably SHOULD cut that disgusting Trump/moronic Harris supporter out of your life, but you’ve been friends a long time, it would be a shame to end it.

But then there’s this: You walk around in your day to day and have casual encounters with people at work or in stores or at the park or gym, or wherever you go, and you don’t hate them. They’re perfectly kind to you, and you to them. They can often be quite lovely, even when sometimes you can just tell by looking at them and the way they’re dressed, that they’re of a particular political tribe… and it’s not the right one. If you had that conversation, there’d be no stopping the hate. This isn’t normal. And I know it isn’t normal because it’s a historical aberration. This sort of animosity between common people wasn’t a thing prior to Democratic Republics, and those are a very modern invention indeed. You might point to Rome, but it was a different sort of Democratic Republic, the philosophy underpinning modern Democracies hadn’t gotten there just yet. The prominence of the individual, a product of Enlightenment thinkers, was necessary to get us there.

We’ve traveled well down the road of individualism now. Looking out for yourself first is the wisdom of the day. Are you happy? That’s the most important thing. If you’re not happy, you should do the thing you think will make you happy. Leave your spouse, quit your job, get that cosmetic surgery. There’s no reason to be unhappy, if they really love you your family will understand. And God wouldn’t want you to be unhappy either. Really, you and your feelings are the most important thing. And so now we are individuals first, and part of our families and churches and societies second and third and fourth (or perhaps some other order, though you are most certainly at the forefront).

So maybe philosophy is part of why we’re here, and part of why things are wrong.

The other day I saw an article about some smart glasses. You put them on, and they are always recording, always listening and seeing. They were touted as a solution to make you smarter. When someone uses a complicated word you don’t understand it will display to you the definition. It will remember what they said ten minutes ago, or a week ago, and prompt you with the right thing to say to make reference to it. The article treated it like this is some kind of great advancement, but isn’t it fundamentally strange? Rather than you having a conversation the glasses are having it for you. It’s not hard to imagine a scenario where both participants in a conversation are wearing them, and they’re just passive conveyors of information for the two technological tools. It’s utterly unnatural.

It used to be when watching science fiction shows, when the inevitable plot involving an advanced alien race refusing to share their technology with humans surfaced, I would look at it and be frustrated. They needed that technology to save themselves from utter annihilation! But the truth is the technology itself would annihilate them even more surely and totally than the physical threat they were facing. At least they had a chance of defeating that, however slim the odds. In ancient writings like the Book of Enoch, there are explicit warnings about techne, technology as sort of a forbidden knowledge. Take this passage, from Enoch 8:1-2:

1 And Azazel taught men to make swords, and daggers, and shields, and
breastplates. And he showed them the things after these, and the art of
making them; bracelets, and ornaments, and the art of making up the
eyes, and of beautifying the eyelids, and the most precious stones, and
all kinds of coloured dyes. And the world was changed.

2 And there was great impiety, and much fornication, and they went astray, and all their ways became corrupt.

The Bible itself includes examples of techne. The first is the fruit in the garden. In Orthodox tradition, it is thought that man would eventually have reached a point when he would be ready to eat of the tree and gain the knowledge – the sin was in the refusal to wait for the proper time. The tower of Babel is another example. In that instance, man uses techne to try to lift himself up and defy God.

I could give countless examples of current technology that humanity is not ready for, but that we have now. What we call “AI” is one of them. Already people consider ChatGPT and Grok to be authoritative sources of information because they don’t understand how they actually work – that’s not helped by the choice to call them AI when they are nothing of the sort. Social media is not something our brains can handle. The internet as a whole seems to much for us. There’s too much demanding our attention too much of the time and we can’t focus on anything.

And so it seems technology is another part of what is wrong.

It’s not all bad mind you, there does seem to be a connection between a philosophy of individualism and the elimination of slavery. Without technological advancements I probably couldn’t communicate this to you (but would I need to?), and certainly not in this manner. But more people would die of disease and heat or cold or starvation or countless other things that technology is able to prevent. But we’ve also lost a great deal. So much beauty and culture has been lost, species have been destroyed, and ways of life eradicated. To quote Paul Kingsnorth, “The sweep of history is the story of worlds dying, after all.”

There is a tension here. We shouldn’t throw it all away, but we do need to look back, we do need to backtrack and find a way back to a proper course, and we do need to be intentional about how we are interacting in this very strange reality, because we can’t keep living this way.

Something is wrong, and if we don’t fix it, we are doomed.