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

Jack Black announced on Instagram that he’s cancelled the rest of the Tenacious D world tour and placed future projects on hiatus.

This happened after his bandmate Kyle Gass sparked controversy by commenting on the recent Donald Trump assassination attempt.

At their recent Sydney show, Kyle Gass was given a birthday cake and asked to make a wish for his 64th birthday, to which he said “Don’t miss Trump next time.”

In his later statement, Black said he was “blindsided” by his bandmate’s comment and condemned any calls for political violence.

  • @YprumEnglish
    -3•5 months ago

    Don’t use fallacies to defend violence. Killing trump is not the only way to avoid that from happening. Becoming a terrorist and promoting violence against a political group contrary to your political opinion is not OK no matter how dangerous that group is. You are using the same discussion techniques that fucking maga asshats use. Seriously you don’t see the issue on the way you are defending the idea that assassinating a political opponent is the only way to defeat that opponent?

    You are defending the republican gun nutjob that went to shoot trump and accidentally killed someone else? You are saying his decision making was the kind of behaviour to glorify? The same kind of nut job that will happily join in the death squads you talk about? What the fuck, how does your brain work? How can you not see the hypocrisy of what you are saying…

    Of course that’s assuming a sincere take and not just some piece of shit bot or account made to increase violence hatred and division.

    • ZootEnglish
      7•5 months ago

      How about we consider it self-defense and get on with it then? Trump has tried to end democracy once before, January 6th to be exact. Wasn’t justice supposed to prevail or something? No? It hasn’t yet? It likely never will? The only way to protect myself going forward then is to…? You tell us Mr. Violence is never the option, since the courts don’t work, and voting is soon to not matter.

      • @YprumEnglish
        -2•5 months ago

        And your proposal is that justice should prevail by a public mass shooting to kill the orange turd?

        So your thinking is that because trump tried to end democracy, now you have the right to kill him?

        The only way to defend yourself is with guns and killing those who attack you? I wonder what group of people keep proposing that…

        People like you, already defeated months before the election, saying that voting doesn’t matter, have a lot to do with the end of democracy. Go vote, make it matter.

        Shit’s real fucked, you have in the states a candidate for presidency instead of being in prison like he should. And the problem is that no one has killed him yet? No wonder that justice won’t work…

        Either you are just trying to help the orange shit posting this kind of defeatist comment on purpose or you are just as bad as a republican that keeps saying those who oppose him should be killed.

        • @[email protected]English
          1•5 months ago

          How many lives do you think Trump will destroy? If the answer isn’t “a lot”, you haven’t been paying attention. His supreme court justices from his last term have already started racking up one hell of a body count.

          Would you object to police officers gunning down a mass shooter rather than allow them to continue taking innocent lives? How sacred is a single life against the lives of their many potential and actual victims?

          From a purely ethical standpoint, it’s hard to argue that killing fascists is anything other than a net moral good. At the end of the day, it’s taking one life to save many, something that we accept as an unfortunate moral necessity all the time. Obviously, we prefer to exhaust other options first, but ultimately we still accept the use of violence to protect the innocent when strictly necessary.

          (I am, of course, speaking purely in terms of ethical hypotheticals here)

          • @YprumEnglish
            1•5 months ago

            But you are talking about a completely different thing. Here’s what it boils down to:

            Obviously, we prefer to exhaust other options first

            Does it look like that? Not really… Not when people are cheering for some asshole to be assassinated. This is not about the value of one life, this is not about the use of violence of armed forces to try and save others, this is not about the lives that trump would destroy. This is about people cheering for a murder, this is about a public figure inciting violence publicly… Did you notice the reaction of someone like Biden or Sanders (the two examples I know of, surely there are others)? immediately rejecting the actions of a violent man that decided to open fire against a big amount of people, it’s irrelevant who he was aiming for. The only solution for anyone talking in this thread is killing trump, instead of voting the other (albeit very imperfect) party. It’s still months before the election and everyone is acting like trump has won already and the only solution is killing him. Wtf.

            I guess this thread and conversation has shown me why the US has such a gun problem. Why the police is absurdly violent against anyone they consider a threat. Why someone would resort to shooting a bunch of people if they’ve been bullied for years or whatever and feel threatened. Fucking sad…

            All of this is not about me wanting trump alive and well, I don’t want the orange turd around, I’d hope preferably that he rots in prison though and that he has very “nice” cellmate with him, but if he’s gone from the surface of the earth all the better for the rest of us. That is not the same as inciting for violence, or approving the assassination attempt that has killed someone else.