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.
deleted by creator
JB’s response may be more of a concern for their safety than just an attempt to mitigate bad publicity. There are a lot more Trump supporters with guns than without.
Terrorism wins again.
Fearing for their safety on an Australian tour? No, if you read the article the response is all political and Australian politicians were calling for the band’s deportation.
Those people remember this shit and hold grudges. It could easily follow them home.
deleted by creator
How dare you not be civil while they’re rounding people up and putting them in camps!
Anyone standing behind Trump is a traitor insurrectionist flying the flag of a felon. The world will be a far better place without Trump, and anyone expediting that outcome has my respect as a patriot.
Populist are the true destroyers of civilizations.
A martyr Trump would be much much worse than a living one. Trump needs to be further discredited and the plutocracy as it exists today dismantled, otherwise things will either stay the same or get worse. Tall order, I know, but an assassinated Trump now would be terrible.
I disagree, a living martyr is the worst.
It’s probably more they don’t want crazy fucking trumpers taking shots at them. This is a safety issue a very real one. The band probably agrees with what he said but not enough to get killed over it. Which again is a very real possibility. These crazies almost got Trump with his security while Jack black walks around the venue of his shows alone before gigs.
What makes you think the outage is fake? If he doesn’t believe in political violence (doesn’t seem like that should be a controversial opinion even if you disagree), or at least believes in separating his private thoughts from his stage personality, I imagine the outrage is completely real. I’d imagine he very much did not want Kyle to implicate him by saying it in a very public venue with Jack on stage, even if he privately agrees.
I don’t know who he is in private but his public face is very much, “it’s all about the music, man!” and being innocuous. Being divisive can only hurt his popularity, and very much his bottom line as he and anyone thinking of casting him have to worry about boycotts and review bombs, to say nothing of targeted political violence against him and his fans.
Also, yes Trump and his followers espouse political violence. Do we want to normalize that? Really? That’s a scary thought to me because I don’t know how we put that genie back in the bottle. Right now it remains outrageous when the right does it, but if the left does as well then we can’t condemn it without hypocrisy. It’s just the new normal - we kill each other when we can’t get what we want through other means.
That thought very much frightens me because I don’t know how we all walk away from the precipice. I get Jack’s perspective and I’d be outraged about being put in the position of seeming to endorse that as well.
I guess bring on the downvotes if you must. I’ve got nothing to lose by speaking my mind.
Have fun not fighting back against fascists because defending against violence with violence would be “sinking ot their level”.
Yeah well if we’re all acting like fascists then none of us are.
Fascist is a word that means something.
It’s not that.
Please stop using it carelessly.
Read the “paradox of intolerance” if you have not, and wonder after you do who and for what purpose the ‘citizens should never ever resort to violence’ idea serves best. I upvoted you because i like when people speak their minds knowing they’ll be unpopular. I do disagree with you, but ive come to my new belief recently and don’t look down on those i feel are walking on the same path i walked
I’m aware of it. And I agree with it. It’s nuanced and hard to really get into without writing a book here. I hate Trump and I can’t even say I haven’t considered how much safer I’d feel if he died. That I haven’t at times impatiently wondered when the backlash against stochastic terrorism would inevitably rise up and answer violence with violence.
Hell if the assassin had gotten him, I think a lot more people would condemn the act from the safety of a post Trump world. But such things threaten to spill into open violence. And who can de-escalate if both sides are doing it? And without de-escalation, what is the end of violence? A horrific outcome no matter which side wins.
If we won, if we murdered and assassinated every white suprematist, every anti-abortionist, every homophobe and transphobe, every billionaire, who would we even be? And when would we stop?
I could go on at great length, but I’ll stop here. I appreciate respectful disagreement. I’m not anyone’s enemy here. I value the discussion and opinions I don’t share. I might not have spoken up but I didn’t see anyone else saying the things I felt needed to be said.
Anyway, salute brother (or however you identify). May we all come out on the other side of this thing together.
I’m sorry to see you are downvoted, I believe your mature take is correct.
Yeah this was absolutely worth never being in another movie or TV show /s
Serious question for anyone who believes political violence is never ok: at what point on the timeline do you think it was ok to respond to Hitler with violence?
1923 Beer Hall Putsch? SA violence in the early 30s? The Nazi party being sworn into power in 1933? Reischstag Fire? Night of the Long Knives?
Trump already has the support of a bought and paid for corrupt court, and we’ve already had Jan 6th. He’s promised to be dictator on day 1.
Is political violence truly never the answer?
Calls for order over justice is the hallmark of someone who never had to fight for their rights. It’s a position of privilege.
Something something letter from Birmingham Jail
Yup, exactly this. DARVO is the standard abusers’ playbook, and it also applies to oppression.
D is Deny/Downplay. “No, oppression doesn’t happen. And if it does, it’s not as bad as you’re making it out to be.”
A is Attack. When they can’t deny it anymore, they’ll go on the offensive. Try to redirect the focus back to the victim. “Well what about…”
RVO is Reverse Victim and Offender. When outright attacking the victim doesn’t work, they move on to playing the victim. Make the real victim look bad, to garner sympathy. Pretend to be the helpless one in the situation, and say that the victim is attacking you for no reason.
When the oppressed fight back, the oppressors will act offended and use it to further victimize the oppressed.
The founders believed in political violence. That’s the point of the 2nd amendment.
That’s the point of the 2nd amendment.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
I think it’s pretty clear that the point of the 2nd amendment is “a well regulated Militia”.
To what end, exactly?
Are you asking what the purpose of a militia is?
Yeah. Who was this militia supposed to go after?
Foreign armies.
How quaint.
Please read Federalist 46. Madison explicitly argues that the right to bear arms is reserved for several purposes, one of which is to prevent the encroachment of the federal gov’t on states and local polities. Madison specifically indicates a tension between militias and federal gov’t forces.
2A, in the minds of the Founders, was to repel any monarch or tyrant, to explicitly include any agent of the federal gov’t.
That’s the thing. Violence should never be the answer. The problem is that the worst of us count on other people not fighting. So, when it’s actually time for violence, it’s too late.
It never the answer to advocate for it in a non-political venue where you’re part of a group that can associated with your comment without their consent. He torpedoed their careers as a band.
I hate Trump, but I don’t want him to be made a martyr and I’d be pissed off if I was Jack Black and this guy fucked up our public performances without my knowing about it first.
I really doubt he torpedoed their careers. The joke was no worse than lots of jokes Trump has made, such as about Nancy Pelosi’s husband. If the partnership ends, it’s because of Jack Black, not because of people clamoring for them to stop touring.
Repeating from another comment: It won’t be safe for them to perform in public, at least in the short term. They had to cancel this tour because the dude goaded literally crazy mother fuckers with guns. This isn’t like when the Dixie Chicks criticized Bush. This painted a target on their backs.
Targets on their back while touring Australia, which has gun control? There are trump supporters and right wing nutjobs here but its a different political and legal atmosphere than america.
He did this as he feared being canceled IMHO, more than fear for safety. If it was safety, they would say that. Likely there was already the start of a relationship breakdown. Or jack feared more for his movie career as he is likely lined on both sides of the political spectrum.
First they came for the minstrels.
Turns out someone was recently shot in Perth. Looks like it is possible, even with WA’s new gun laws.
Furthermore unless the world done shrank on me, a “world tour” I would surmise isn’t just exclusive to Aus and then they live there and never leave. Chances are at some point that tour (or y’know, going home) would bring them back to the states.
Yes, gun control is not no guns.
If it was about riaj, they could cancel just the american part. Or would that increase the risk.
Is cancellong the non USA parts appeasing the violent right even more?
Your argument isn’t holding water.
My “argument” was “they totally could get shot outside the US.”
Yes, gun control is not no guns.
Seems you agree that it is possible to be shot outside the US. Your argument isn’t holding water.
I’m hoping they get back together after some of the heat dies at least.
He torpedoed their careers as a band.
Did he though? I can’t imagine KG’s sentiment is an unusual one except among the MAGA cult and milquetoast centrists, and even then only the cultists could probably maintain a sustained boycott (although even then I don’t think things have been going too poorly for Bud Light lately).
I’m not sure I buy the trump as martyr either. No one has quite been able to replicate his “charm” among the faithful, so with him gone are centrists going to be more swayed? I’m not convinced.
It won’t be safe for them to perform in public, at least in the short term. They had to cancel this tour because the dude goaded literally crazy mother fuckers with guns. This isn’t like when the Dixie Chicks criticized Bush. This painted a target on their backs.
That’s crazy to me because Bush is a way better band.
Rimshot.
He said out loud what most progressives think and they’re known to be progressives so I don’t think their crowd cares, if anything they’ll get more famous
I would not be ok with anyone I work with painting a target on my back. The rightwingers in the USA are lunatics. See Pelosi’s husband getting attacked with a hammer. No matter what I might think, I am not ok with anyone putting me at risk of violence without my say.
This is precisely the problem.
“Most progressives” do not think it works be OK to assassinate a political opponent, but that flippant “joke” makes it sound like a normal and reasonable position.
I think most progressives would be dishonest if they said they didn’t have a moment where they hoped Trump has died when they learned that he got shot.
You’re correct of course, when the news broke my initial reaction was “this would be fucking great”, but it didn’t take long to realise that it wouldn’t have the desired effect.
You been off lemmy recently or something? Most clearly do support it. Every thread here there’s one or two pacifists decrying violence with downvotes and justification for murder in replies. Most people on lemmy are progressive, and I’d be willing to bet this isn’t the only progressive hangout that has been having the same experience.
I don’t really follow you. Yes Lemmy is a progressive hangout. Opinions here are not indicative of the larger population, nor even the larger population of progressives.
Basing an opinion of what “most” progressives want based on Lemmy comments is absolutely absurd.
Regardless, I guess I’m one of those few pacifists who don’t think violence is the best course of action. Trump needs to be slaughtered in the election and then go to jail.
It doesn’t take much insight to understand that Trump being assassinated would be the start of a dark period in history, not the end.
Tbf, by this logic, we can never say “most X Y” without having the actual data to back it up, and neither of us do, so stalemate I guess. All either of us have is empirical.
I’m not arguing with your pacifism, I’m just arguing with the premise that most progressives aren’t literally saying “dammit why’d he miss” right now.
When is it okay if it’s against whichever politicians you like?
I don’t understand why people tend to forget that opinions vary. There literally cannot be a moment where everyone agrees someone can only be stopped by violence. Don’t worry though, sadly like 95% of Lemmy has been proud of this bloodlust the past few days. Your opinion is popular.
Fascism is not a difference of opinion.
You say that like the right considers themselves fascist
Find someone stupider to bandy words with, you’ve got the wrong fucking guy.
Ignorant
Who gives a shit what a fascist considers themselves to be? I’m not trying to talk fascists out of being fascists. Talking has never defeated conservative fascism.
Conservatism is a plague long overdue for a cure.
Why can’t you people understand the simple concept of understanding your enemy? It’s like anything but willful ignorance here is derided and hated.
You and I have different definitions of willful ignorance.
Yeah, mine applies to any topic, yours applies to ones where your agenda is preserved and unquestioned.
Not a surprise with your username that you’re super into violence when it’s wielded against your enemies. I’m sure you clutch pearls every single time it goes the other way.
No?
Whoa, whoa, you think there are politicians that we like?
Clearly there are politicians that people like. Watch:
Fuck Joe Biden, he sucks and all politicians are scum including AOC and Bernie.
Clearly there are politicians that people like. Watch:
Fuck Joe Biden, he sucks and all politicians are scum including AOC and Bernie.
Context of important. For many of us “like” of politicians is relative.
Joe Biden fucking sucks and is way too close to death to be making decisions that he’ll never have to see the consequences of. But, he’s a hell of a lot better than a fascist and the fake leftist Putin stooges that are trying to help get said fascist elected. He’s also done a lot more for the working class than most US presidents in the last 50 years.
AOC is a politician who is a woman of color with working-class roots. Compared to other politicians, I like her. However, I’ve been less fond of her voting record on things like the rail strike, which feels like a betrayal. Could be just having to choose battles and “play politics” but, I have no way of knowing as I don’t have personal contact or rapport with her. So, overall, neutral, relative to other politicians, like.
Bernie is a politician who has been on the right side of history for a lot of social issues. I don’t really agree with him in everything, like gun control but, that could well be a strategic thing. Again, overall, neutral leaning positive, relative to other politicians, like.
AOC…I like her
See? There’s one. Relative or not, you like her enough to say you like her. I’m counting it.
I’m just saying, we can’t really sit here and pretend nobody likes any politicians. Hell two hole (as in ass, pun intended) instances here simp for Stalin so hard it makes their пизда wet. Sure he’s dead but an autocrat is a politican nonetheless.
I’m with you, I actively hate all politicians. In fact you have better stuff to say about them than I would, but we aren’t everyone. Some people clearly love politicians.
In fact you have better stuff to say about them than I would
That’s partly from my near-pathological optimism that I developed as a coping strategy for untreated ADHD and depression. I involuntarily see a silver lining in most things.
Some people clearly love politicians.
… Yeah. That’s a weird one to me. I suspect it is a neurodivergent thing but it’s up there with celebrity worship and other parasocial relationships. I can rationalize my way through it but I don’t “get it”.
That’s partly from my near-pathological optimism that I developed as a coping strategy for untreated ADHD and depression. I involuntarily see a silver lining in most things.
Hold the fuck on did I write this and forget?! Lmao dude same, though I am also full of hatred for authority, so on this one it clashes haha.
I suspect it is a neurodivergent thing
Do you mean the politician lovers, us, or both? Lol in any case you may be right, I don’t get it either but I do see them around.
Disliking someone less is not the same as liking them.
“it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.” - Douglas Adams
I happen to agree with Mr. Adams here, but again I must refute the idea that nobody likes politicians.
Hell trump has a fucking cult, they clearly like him and he is a politician, ipso facto some people like some politicians. They exist, it is an undisputable fact frankly.
Oh, across the broader population you’re absolutely correct. In that initial comment, I was referring to the users here on lemmy. Sorry, “we” can be rather ambiguous.
Ah lol, fair!
Is political violence truly never the answer?
Personally, no. But, I’m a “no-first-strikes” pacifist. Violence harms the victim, the perpetrator, and those who witness it directly or indirectly. It can also cause great harm to efforts to affect political and social change.
However, I think that history does show that it has an important role, supposing its adherents follow strict ethical constraints and do not attempt to install themselves as bosses (something that is not terribly common in history). For non-violence to be truly effective, it needs to be clear and plausible that violence is the alternative. The Labor Movement had the likes of The Molly Maguires. The suffragettes had the likes of the WSPU. And the non-violent anvil of Dr. King had the hammer of Malcom X.
Ever since this incident when U.S. politicians collectively argued that political violence was not okay, I have thought ‘I wonder how Fred Hampton would feel about these folks denouncing political violence?’ -I admit I don’t know the answer to this question, but when I consider the specific people going around vocally denouncing political violence, I’m not so convinced that those same people don’t protest too much.
How many rights taken away is too much?
Choosing to travel through time to kill a historical figure is easy because we know exactly what will happen if nothing is changed.
Killing a modern day figure is different because we don’t know what’s going to happen in the future. We can guess, but that’s it.
For example, at what point would it have been appropriate to assassinate Smedley Butler? 92 years ago today, it might have seemed like he was poised to become a dictator.
On the other side of this coin, is this: https://www.historyisnowmagazine.com/blog/2024/3/19/what-if-archduke-franz-ferdinand-of-austria-had-not-been-assassinated
Yeah, good point. He was actually much more aligned with the goals of his assassin, Gavrilo Princip, than Princip knew. Princip thought he was doing something that would help the Bosnian / Serb cause, but instead he killed someone who might have given the Bosnians / Serbs more autonomy.
The thing is, I’m sure that there are cases where political killing actually makes things better. Obviously, it often makes things worse. But, it must be true that sometimes it makes things better. The problem is, that there’s no alternative history you can consult to prove it. You can just speculate about what might have happened if that person had not been killed.
For a random example, take Carlos Castillo Armas. He was put in power in Guatemala thanks to a CIA-backed coup. The US was involved partially because the democratically elected president was thought to be under the influence of Russia. But, more importantly, he was doing things that were hurting the bottom line of American fruit companies. When he took power, he started doing dictator things: rounding up and killing opposition, shooting protesters, revoking civil liberties, etc.
Then, 3 years after he took power, he was assassinated by a bodyguard.
What happened after that was probably not good for Guatemala. There were 36 years of civil war, and a lot of unrest. On the other hand what if Armas had been able to consolidate power? Would decades of dictatorship have been better or worse?
Also, killing an established, truly evil dictator almost never results in a happy democracy. But, that’s probably because the dictator has destroyed all checks and balances, wrecked every institution that a working society needs, and eliminated anybody who might be a threat. So, if a dictator is killed, the result is often chaos, or another dictator taking over. But, if you eliminate someone who might have become a dictator, who’s to say that they really would have become one?
Predicting the future is hard, predicting the past is easy.
I would think that if Trump was going to remove his own term limits so he could be President for Life and then start murdering his political rivals, it would have been in his first term when he had the House, Senate, and Supreme Court locked down. As it stands, he’s only going to be in power for another four years, worst-case scenario. It would take a constitutional amendment to change that (which is a big part of why he isn’t President for Life). I’m not going to sit here and say when it’s okay to start killing politicians, other than that we aren’t there yet.
I’d like to ask you a question as well: if Trump died, what do you think would have happened? Do you think that 100% of the gun-toting pro-Trump militias throughout the country would have laid down their arms and admitted defeat? Do you think that the political faction that is, on average, more likely to own and use guns than the left, would have said “well that sucks I guess”? Do you think that Democrats across the country would be safe? Or do you think it would be a Shot Heard Cross the Coasts that would have started a free-for-all of political violence that the country hasn’t seen in decades - perhaps centuries?
While I do think that the right of the people to govern themselves has certain implications I won’t get into here, it also means we have legislative options on the table. You have freedom of speech, which is why we can ask questions like yours and mine. We have the right to assemble, form parties, and elect officials. Let’s use those rights while the government hasn’t decided to destroy them yet; and if they ever do, let’s take the discussion to a more anonymous forum like on Tor or I2P.
Do you think that 100% of the gun-toting pro-Trump militias throughout the country would have laid down their arms and admitted defeat? Do you think that the political faction that is, on average, more likely to own and use guns than the left, would have said “well that sucks I guess”? Do you think that Democrats across the country would be safe? Or do you think it would be a Shot Heard Cross the Coasts that would have started a free-for-all of political violence that the country hasn’t seen in decades - perhaps centuries?
I don’t think either of those scenarios would happen. Maybe a civil war’s coming, but we’re not there yet. Or at least not quite yet.
As it stands, he’s only going to be in power for another four years, worst-case scenario.
I think worst case scenario outside literal king trump is project 2025 ensures enough gerrymandering and partisan hackery gets put in place such that dems never again see house and senate majorities or the presidency in our lifetimes, and then the freedoms that are the will of the vast majority like Roe continue to fall. Gay marriage will be next, guaranteed.
I’m not going to sit here and say when it’s okay to start killing politicians, other than that we aren’t there yet.
I don’t necessarily disagree with this, but like I mentioned in another comment, with a bribed SCOTUS giving the legal power to execute political rivals to the president (according to Kagen anyway), by the time the first dem pols are up against the wall it might already be too late. Which is why I asked where someone should’ve stepped in with Hitler-- I don’t know history well enough to draw enough parallels to make an educated guess, but things look a little bleak the way it’s going.
I get a lot of downvotes whenever I ask this and very rarely responded to, but if violence is the solution, why have you not started the violence, or at least started gathering people together?
I no longer live in the US, plus I’m fat, lazy, and have no idea how to organize people or start a revolution. If it were up to me I’d lose the war to fascists. But that doesn’t change the fact that someone should probably do something about fascists. And if violence isn’t the answer and you’re someone who’s similarly worried about fascism, why haven’t you gotten around to a getting started on a non-violent way to solve the problem?
I’m simply of the opinion that at some point along the way, talking nicely to Hitler wasn’t going to change anything. I’m just wondering where along that point in time people think that was.
It’s not really a question directed at you personally, sorry. It’s one I ask all the time when people start crying about how the glorious revolution should start or the guillotines should come out.
Political violence cuts both ways. I don’t think anyone thinks what happens to politicians go against the cartels in Mexico is good or healthy system. For democracy to work we can’t have people constantly fear for their lives. Sure Trump is a terrible human being but I don’t want my candidates living with the same fear. So our only choice is to condem it. Also when bad acting becomes the norm bad actors will thrive. If political assassinations becomes the norm do you think morally justified “good guys” assassin going after Hitlers are going to win/out pace organized crime like what we see in Mexico?
At the end of the day ends don’t justify the means. Violence breeds Violence. In this modern age if we want to create a peaceful society we have to do it peacefully. Violence might be an appealing means to an end and while we might have the moral high ground but they use the same logic to justify their violence.
I guess trump is the only one allowed to make disrespectful comments about other people that almost die and it is just ok.
No, it’s not okay. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Criticizing the language Trump uses but then praising Kyle would be hypocrisy.
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
Good.
Politicians should be terrified of the monstrous political movement they’ve created and/or worked alongside.
If they didn’t want to fear for their lives, then they should have worked for the benefit of the people rather than the shareholders.
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.
I mean it already has? It just happened?? How is it unfounded?
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
That seems to be your idea, I don’t recall suggesting anything like that.
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.
I don’t think he’s saying either are okay, just pointing out the double standard. That’s how I read it anyway.
So you don’t think it’s ok for trump to make disrespectful comments about other people that almost die? Hmmmm
So you have no reading comprehension? Hmmmm
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?
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.
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.
Cool overdramatic story, bro
Uhhh what lol
Explaining how reading works = overdramatic
Is English your native language?
I don’t think the comment was appropriate but I also don’t think it was really necessary to cancel the tour over it. It was a joke made in poor taste. Worth an apology? Sure. But this seems like an overreaction.
It’s worth a super sarcastic apology.
The fact they cancelled the tour and that he split with his manager, makes me believe it wasn’t that harmonic anymore and it was the final straw.
If not, I agree it was a massive overreaction.
Inciting violence is not appropriate, but he could’ve easily just said he should’ve kept it to himself and move on.
Maybe he feels he can’t be a showman and be all fun when democracy is at stake.
People keep acting like Jack Black is punishing Kyle for being offensive, rather than trying to avoid a mass shooting at a Tenacious D concert after his bandmate endorsed political violence.
It’s only in overreaction if you’re not worried about your life, or the lives of your fans.
Australia is not the US
He’s on tour and he cancelled everything until October.
From what I understand the next scheduled show in Ohio is still not a sure thing.
It’s noteworthy that it doesn’t appear black canceled the tour just out of nowhere. I think they were getting pressure from the government based on what I’ve read.
Nah that was just one senator from a rogue far right party that likes to get attention by making ridiculous statements.
They do not represent the government and are not in a position to apply pressure.
Not like I understand Australian politics but one senator could be an influence.
“could be” is doing some heavy lifting there.
Yes one senator can be an influence in very specific and unusual circumstances. Not in this case.
How could you know this so definitively?
I guess it’s just the australian political landscape, which I don’t expect you to care about very much, suffice to say this guy is pretty far removed from the people who can actually make decisions or exert influence about who can be in Australia.
He’s a senator. No one in the senate has any formal interactions which the executive branch like immigration personnel.
He was part of a party called United Australia Party which was a far right protest party. I say was because he was the only candidate that got any traction and his party was disbanded.
He only got elected because he received a bunch of “preferences” from another party that didn’t quite get enough votes to win the seat.
All of this means that formally his only job is to make comments about proposed laws. He does vote on laws but he’s not part of a bloq so no one cares about his vote. Informally it means he doesn’t have any capital - he’s a barely tolerated pariah. Next election he will be lost to the passage of time.
His only play is to make headlines by making outlandish assertions, like “JB should be deported”, to increase his brand recognition when he inevitably retires from politics to pursue a lucrative career in financial planning or some such.
Interesting. I had no idea, thanks for the in depth explanation. So in this case it probably played no or very little role. Things are just often more murky than we make them seem when commenting online is more the general idea I was trying to convey.
From which government? The Aussies?
Yes. Apparently a single senator from the above users comment.
And the person who owns all the media in both those countries
Trump assassination attempt causes Tenacious D to break up was not on my 2024 bingo card.
Comedy group makes joke on stage, more at 11
And here we are with the unpredictable ridiculous shit happening purely because Trump is around again. I for one did not miss 2016-2020.
deleted by creator
I find the outrage hilarious considering the rhetoric that comes out of trumps mouth.
Agreed, kind of a dumb comment to make in front of a large crowd. But the reaction is way overblown.
If comedians are becoming afraid then you know something is very wrong.
Daily Show and now these guys canceled events. This is not good.
I guess because…uh…I don’t know, other then black just wanting out of the band, this doesn’t make a lot of sense.
He said he was “blindsided” by the comment.
Blindsided? Aren’t they friends?
Blindsided? By a sentiment I imagine people had been making jokes about since it happened?
Blindsided because he didn’t think Kyle would say something that could legitimately hurt JB’s image and thus the rest of his career, which is clearly the priority over Tenacious D.
Right, although he explicitly talks about being blindsided by the politically violent nature of the comment, it sounds disingenuous
Tenacious D has a 9-minute song on their first album about comedically overthrowing the government where the ultimate joke is that they assassinate each other simultaneously
Today we are all Kyle Gass fans
Huge overreaction by Jack Black.
Not really when guns are getting fired.
Don’t tour the shithole country?
That’s literally what he just decided, yes.
It was in Australia on a world tour
“We are quitting because you appeared to mouth certain words”
Yeah, massive over reaction. Also explains why there’s no footage/audio of the incident.
Watching Lewis Spears’ (an Australian comedian) take on it, it’s likely that the venues cancelled the events, and this is the PR reason.
When push comes to shove Jack Black folds. Sad to see.
He’s a comedian. Yes this was in poor taste but as a comedian sometimes you swing and miss.
deleted by creator
What a Disney bitch
Damnit. Jack Black is one of those people I never expected to lose any respect for.
Last week Kyle quit the band Now we’re back together Misunderstanding Didn’t understand It doesn’t matter Now we’re back together again
I so want this to be an epic version of that song.
I like how they managed to shoehorn Musk in there. Thanks BBC, very, uh, relevant.
Journalism has devolved into buzzword salad. Facts optional
