Jack Black cancels Tenacious D tour after Kyle Gass's comments about Donald Trump
www.bbc.com
Kyle Gass sparked an outcry with a comment on stage about the assassination attempt on Donald Trump.

Jack Black has said he’s cancelled the rest of the Tenacious D world tour after his bandmate Kyle Gass sparked an outcry with a comment about the assassination attempt on Donald Trump.

The comedy rock group were on stage in Sydney, Australia, on Sunday when Gass was asked to make a wish after being presented with a cake for his 64th birthday.

He appeared to reply: “Don’t miss Trump next time.”

Gass also split with his agent following the incident.

  • HeyJoe@lemmy.world
    191·
    10 个月前

    I guess trump is the only one allowed to make disrespectful comments about other people that almost die and it is just ok.

    • iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works
      41·
      10 个月前

      No, it’s not okay. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Criticizing the language Trump uses but then praising Kyle would be hypocrisy.

      • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
        15·
        10 个月前

        Who the FUCK is downvoting this

        Dragging the whole US down into a landscape where political assassination is acceptable is exactly the right’s goal. As soon as it’s normalized even a little bit, that little tail which currently has a handful of right-wing nuts with pipe bombs and hammers who is actually acting on it is gonna grow to encompass a huge, MASSIVE number of Facebook uncles

        And then I can guarantee that all the people who are celebrating this will no longer be celebrating

          • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
            6·
            10 个月前

            Your idea that the violence will wind up mainly directed against anyone other than the politicians working for good outcomes, and vulnerable ordinary people both in and out of the US, is unfounded.

              • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
                5·
                10 个月前

                Random political violence by the right just happened

                The idea that that can be consistently relied upon to aim also at the right, and productive of some useful political output in terms of justice for working people, is what I am saying is unfounded

              • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
                6·
                10 个月前

                I feel like this is one of those “output only, no input” conversations

                I am suggesting that the people who will be “terrified” and “fear for their lives” will be working people trying to organize a better future, and politicians (such of them that even exist) that are aligned with working people. And that the people working on behalf of the shareholders will be A-ok, mostly speaking, because they’ll be the ones whose followers are doing most of the politician-shooting, and have plenty of money to organize good security for themselves.

                You can read “How Democracies Die” or “On Tyranny” for a lot more in depth characterization of how it often plays out historically speaking. I get what you’re saying but I think it is a comically rosy picture of how violent revolutions against oppressive political movements turn out in reality.

      • tlou3please@lemmy.world
        14·
        10 个月前

        I don’t think he’s saying either are okay, just pointing out the double standard. That’s how I read it anyway.

        • Organichedgehog@lemmy.world
          3·
          10 个月前

          Bet you can’t explain to me how I’m wrong about his comment lol

          Explain to me how he didnt imply that it’s not ok for trump to do it.

          Or maybe you’re the one with terrible reading comprehension?

          • PythagreousTitties@lemm.eeEnglish
            23·
            10 个月前

            The comment is criticizing the fact that Trump can seemingly say and do whatever he wants and gets away with it. While if anyone else does it they’re called out on it.

            • Organichedgehog@lemmy.world
              2·
              10 个月前

              So you think the implication of the original post was “everyone should be able to make disrespectful comments about people that almost die and it’s ok”?

              Or is the implication “it’s not ok for people to make disrespectful comments about people that almost die”?

              This isn’t complicated, those are the only two interpretations of the original comment. Only one of them is a realistic interpretation, and it - along with a lot of comments in this thread - are overtly hypocritical.

              Don’t think I’ll win over you or the hypocrite-hivemind, and I don’t particularly care. Later.