[Jcowell]

> The sentence is convoluted but clearly implies that "this kid" was "one of the MAGA gang".

What? This is crazy “find the authors purpose” gymnastics. The quote does nothing to imply that the kids is Maga or not. It does however directly commentates on “Maga gang”’s actions to try to paint him as anyone other than someone who could be MAGA. Thats the entire point of what was said

[zahlman]

> The quote does nothing to imply that the kids is Maga or not. It does however directly commentates on “Maga gang”’s actions to try to paint him as anyone other than someone who could be MAGA

In every universe where the shooter is not "MAGA" (which, on the available evidence, includes ours), "trying to paint him as anyone else" is truthful, and not wrong. The entire point of a critique of this sort is to allege that someone did something wrong. The sentence does carry the implication that Kimmel is calling the shooter "MAGA" (i.e., either believes it, or wants to insinuate it) because otherwise there would be no reason, in Kimmel's position, to say any of it.

[ajross]

> The sentence does carry the implication that Kimmel is calling the shooter "MAGA"

True.

> because otherwise there would be no reason, in Kimmel's position, to say any of it.

Untrue. In context, what he's saying (this is clear in the sentences before and after) is that MAGA is playing politics by arguing about attribution. Remember in the early hours it did look like the shooter might have been a groyper, and even Fuentes himself came out to disavow violence. By Kimmel's monologue, the trans angle had diluted that obviously. But if we're playing interpretation games you can point out he was using past tense, right?

The "offensive" content needs to be deliberately inferred, and the appropriate response is to clarify and apologize. We all know what actually happened isn't about what Kimmel actually said.