Kimmel's was more realistic and a somewhat accurate impression of Karl Malone; Howard Stern's was a straight up minstrel show. By the way, I don't think there's a problem with either. The entire point of Stern's bit was to show how offensive and despicable it was. He wasn't trying to "normalize" it, or say it was okay... he was intentionally being as offensive as possible.
But if you're going to be constantly virtue signalling about this kind of stuff (I mean Stern and Kimmel, not you), and you have this in your past, then you get what you fucking deserve.
As much as I dislike Jim, that line about diabetes I still use today. "Why they gotta call it something so negative, they should call it something more positive like 'livebetes'."
Sterns was waaaaaay worse at least Kimmels was kind of funny
Kimmel's was more realistic and a somewhat accurate impression of Karl Malone; Howard Stern's was a straight up minstrel show. By the way, I don't think there's a problem with either. The entire point of Stern's bit was to show how offensive and despicable it was. He wasn't trying to "normalize" it, or say it was okay... he was intentionally being as offensive as possible.
But if you're going to be constantly virtue signalling about this kind of stuff (I mean Stern and Kimmel, not you), and you have this in your past, then you get what you fucking deserve.
Well said.
As much as I dislike Jim, that line about diabetes I still use today. "Why they gotta call it something so negative, they should call it something more positive like 'livebetes'."