Good point. I hadn't thought that the hunting thing might be a favoured activity among her fellow Q_Anon travelers. I was trying for a dehumanized angle. The Tonton Macoute ? Anything but the Holocaust.
Cancel culture IRL
- Thread starter d4m10n
- Start date
-
- Tags
- cancel culture
- Status
Good point. I hadn't thought that the hunting thing might be a favoured activity among her fellow Q_Anon travelers. I was trying for a dehumanized angle. The Tonton Macoute ? Anything but the Holocaust.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
I have a pretty solid moral framework of my own. You, however, seem to think that whatever method you're using is better.
If you can't be bothered to even attempt to explain your framework, I'm going to be left with no choice but to conclude that it's an entirely relative and subjective view that pretty much boils down to you believing that whatever you think or do is "right" and if anybody disagrees they're "wrong".
dirtywick
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2006
- Messages
- 10,139
It’s documented she has had a conversation about her social media with both her co workers and Disney in late 2020, and that she had a PR firm representing her that recently dropped her. The only thing I don’t know is whether or not Disney has a social media policy for its actors, and since most companies do, including my own which I review and sign every year, I believe it’s reasonable to conclude they do.
It’s speculation but it’s well founded speculation. We do know that she was aware her social media posts were problematic for Disney and her co stars several months before she was let go. The exact content of these conversations are unknown however.
Distracted1
Philosopher
In which case- it is ideological conformity that is demanded.
She was not fired for the "behavior" of posting on social media, she was fired because of the ideological makeup of the posts, IOW "speech".
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 18,482
Cool.
I still don’t see the point of judging the morality of events that haven’t taken place.johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 18,482
I have a pretty solid moral framework of my own. You, however, seem to think that whatever method you're using is better.
If you can't be bothered to even attempt to explain your framework, I'm going to be left with no choice but to conclude that it's an entirely relative and subjective view that pretty much boils down to you believing that whatever you think or do is "right" and if anybody disagrees they're "wrong".
I appreciate your kind offer, but upon careful consideration, I’ve decided to continue to not care what you think.
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 18,482
Her ideology is irrelevant. Disney doesn’t care about her ideology. They care about their brand being damaged by the stupid, inflammatory things she was refused to stop saying.
The idea that a corporation like Disney is interested in ideological purity is laughably stupid. They care about one thing: Money. If you want to stay in Disney’s good graces, don’t **** with their money. Gina Carano ****** with their money.
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 23,741
No. From their own article I gave you the link to, "We asked our polling partner, Morning Consult, to field some questions in our weekly survey". It's one of the weekly surveys on their site.
And even from your analysis, if you actually read and understood what you link to, you'd notice something missing, compared to actual serious surveys: the discussion of how their sample reflects the general population. Presumably because then they'd have to tell you that it doesn't.
In fact, if you had actually read the data in your own crosstab link, it raises questions such as that the number of baby boomers (defined in their crosstab as born between 1946 and 1964, a 17 year interval) is 743, compared to the millenials (1981-1996, a 16 year interval) at only 184. That's literally more than FOUR TIMES more people polled in the more conservative boomer demographic, than the millenial demographic, in spite of the latter actually having actually MORE people alive than the former in the actual demographic of the USA. (Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/296974/us-population-share-by-generation/)
Drawing conclusions about the actual opinions of the USA electorate as a whole, from such a MASSIVELY biased sample, is just dishonest and stupid.
So yeah, it LOOKS enough like a legitimate poll for whining idiots to be able to use it as "evidence" for their whine, but it's not actually one.
Last edited:
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 23,741
Human have always done this, so it's no big deal. Not worth talking about.
You know what else isn't new? Racism, sexism, murder, slavery, thievery... Yep, it's nothing new, why would we ever bother to spend any time talking about those things and the negative impact they have on people and society as a whole?
And that actually makes the polar opposite point of what you seem to think it does.
If something was actually bad, then we already started figuring out it's bad a long time ago. We didn't need to wait for some republican think-tank to come up with the buzzword for this election, to even start debating whether murder or thievery are bad.
Hell, even slavery, there have been people saying it's bad for as long as we have a written history. Aristotle actually explicitly addresses objections of anti-slavery philosophers, which tells us that they already existed. Before Christ.
Racism? Yeah, you only need to look back at Rome for an example of people who were 100% convinced that anyone's children can be just as good as Romans. Anyone, of any race, could become a citizen by serving in the auxilia. Even slaves could become freedmen, and their children could become citizens, with the same rights and privileges as any Roman. At least one such barbarian's kid became emperor.
Plus, unlike Greeks, which mostly used the trope of the slave giving a monologue about how he's just as good as his masters as a comedy trope (you know, same as having a one-legged guy talk about how he could win the marathon like anyone else), the Romans start using it as an honest opinion as soon as they start having theatre.
And that's going all the way back to 8'th century BCE for assimilating other people and races, and for theatre use as far back as they had theatre, a couple of centuries later.
And generally, even after the Romans, we start having serious anti-racism arguments in Europe around the year 1500 or so.
Sexism? Again, people start having proto-feminist ideas already in BC times. Stoics for example already maintained that women are just as capable intellectually as men. Again, that's Before Christ times.
Now this didn't really result in a lot more rights for women in the ancient world, and even a lot of Stoics didn't quite practice what they preached, but the idea is there. A lot of people were already figuring out that that discrimination isn't really justified.
If, by contrast, you need some proud bigot twits to tell you that you should be angered that a fellow proud bigot got "cancelled", before it's even worth discussing... yeah, no, it's NOT on par with murder and theft
Last edited:
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 18,482
If Disney was interested in “ideological conformity” they would have vetted Gina Carano and never hired her in the first place.
So yeah, it’s all just painfully stupid conspiracy theory nonsense.
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 23,741
Well, yes, but now it's packaged around the narrative that it's not even as much for having an opinion, but just because some meanies on Twitter were bad mouthing the guy for no real reason, and the boss absolutely had no choice but to obey Twitter. Because apparently Twitter is like borg nanites: if the order comes through, you can only obey
The "just having an opinion" is kinda de-emphasized this time around. Pay no attention to what that fellow was actually saying, just focus on the part where other people are talking about it on Twitter, kinda deal.
So anyway, all I'm saying is that if people talking about what some fellow actually did was such a horrible deal -- even on par with murder and theft, apparently -- we would have figured that out a long time ago. We wouldn't have in fact gone in the opposite direction of making it a fundamental human right. If everyone had to wait for it to be the 2020 election buzzword to figure out that it's bad, yeah, it's probably not THAT bad. Is all I'm saying.
Last edited:
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
On Morning Consult?
Did you miss the bit about how they are weighting the sample?
We should look into how they got the 1,991 registered voters in the first place, but it is not true to say the results necessarily reflect bias based on age rather than some other factor (e.g. willingness to answer online polls).
It may well be that Morning Consult abandons their usual safeguards when conducting polling on behalf of Politico, but I've yet to see some evidence which would lead me to conclude this is happening.
Last edited:
We can see that whatever this cancel culture was meant to do has failed as America is now officially uncancelled!
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Are these the same people as the wokescolds or the opposite side? Hard to track all the vaguely insulting neologisms around here.
Cavemonster
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 6,701
Yes, all those cancel culture, sjw, snowflake, cultural marxist cucks and their over reliance on minting new terms.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Pretty sure "cancel culture" wasn't originally minted by the conservative activists who popularized those other terms. Dunno if you meant to imply otherwise, but it seemed worth pointing out.
Last edited:
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 18,482
Instead of retreating to the safety of a pointless semantic debate, let’s perhaps stay on topic.
You claimed that Gina Carano lost her job not because of her behavior, but because Disney wanted “ideological conformity”.
If Disney wanted “ideological conformity” why did they hire Carano in the first place?
If the entertainment industry in general demands “ideological conformity”, how do conservative actors ever get work?
I'm going to make the same request I've made in other threads when the Proudly Wrong drag us down into the weeds of semantics and distinctions without a difference.
Argue your point without using the specific word.
- Person A did Action B.
- Person A received social backlash C.
- Social backlash C was somehow new, unique, and not what humans have always done in response to actions they don't like IN A WAY THAT LOGICALLY MAKES A DIFFERENCE that requires us to care about this particular action now and not millions of equal reactions that have happened before.
Argue your point without using the specific word.
- Person A did Action B.
- Person A received social backlash C.
- Social backlash C was somehow new, unique, and not what humans have always done in response to actions they don't like IN A WAY THAT LOGICALLY MAKES A DIFFERENCE that requires us to care about this particular action now and not millions of equal reactions that have happened before.
- Status