• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cancel culture IRL

Status
Not open for further replies.
d4m10n said:
Okay but how does scrubbing Cara Dune make the world better?
Click to expand...

Dude what answer are you looking for here exactly?

"I want to see the fictional character more than then I care about the real world people the actress the plays her shares dangerous conspiracy theories about?"

Not giving Gina Carrano a soup box to spread stupid hate filled conspiracy theories is what is making the world a better place. If you miss a character she plays take it up with her.

This ain't complicated.
 
dirtywick said:
Isn't a celebrity hiding unappealing things about themselves just being good at their job?
Click to expand...

Maybe. I don't much care. By that logic, was Jimmy Savile great at his job?

There is an argument that actors should keep their private lives private. We shouldn't know about their relationships or how they arrange furniture in their living room because then it becomes more difficult to separate the person from the character. I'm inclined to say the viewer bears a lot of responsibility to suspend disbelief.

johnny karate said:
Framing this a moralistic judgement of Carano’s behavior is a red herring, and of course, another opportunity for wokescolds to avoid actually addressing the behavior itself.

Carano behaved in a way that her employer found objectionable, who then decided to terminate her employment as a result, as is their right.

End of story.
Click to expand...

What a thoughtless and incoherent comment. It's a "red herring" to frame this as a moralistic judgment yet the Mouse issued a moralistic judgment in firing her.
 
Cain said:
This is just false. You can be as hateful and stupid as you want as long as you're quiet. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the "Bad" Chris believes hateful and stupid things. It wouldn't surprise me if he says hateful and stupid things. It wouldn't surprise me to learn he has a team of well-paid people who want to continue to be well-paid keeping the things he says, or wants to say, in check.
Click to expand...

That may certainly be true, however unlike Gina Carano he hasnt been on social media spreading dangerous lies and propaganda, has he*? It might not be "fair" that celebrities can have their contracts taken away for expressing their opinion. But it's not precisely fair that they get thousands of times more sway via the internet than a normal person because they can act, sing, or fight.

*Actually he, or an assistant maybe, has been attempting to raise money for kids without enough to eat.
 
Cain said:
What a thoughtless and incoherent comment. It's a "red herring" to frame this as a moralistic judgment yet the Mouse issued a moralistic judgment in firing her.
Click to expand...

No, they made a monetary judgement, not a moral one. She made herself a problem in terms of both publicity and a hostile work environment, so...out she goes.
 
Cain said:
Maybe. I don't much care. By that logic, was Jimmy Savile great at his job?

There is an argument that actors should keep their private lives private. We shouldn't know about their relationships or how they arrange furniture in their living room because then it becomes more difficult to separate the person from the character. I'm inclined to say the viewer bears a lot of responsibility to suspend disbelief.
Click to expand...

the more they tweet the harder it is
 
Mumbles said:
Two problems you're facing:

First, Obama very obviously did no such thing, and actually tried to reform US immigration - he was blocked because the same people that love Dolt 45 for his intentional cruelty raved and screamed about it. Toupee Fiasco was far worse in rhetoric *and* intention.
Click to expand...

I don't care about rhetoric *or* intention when implementation and results are the same. It implies that terrible things just need better marketing to be acceptable. If Obama was unable to change things, how can Trump be blamed for maintaining them? Either blame is being incorrectly directed or.. i dunno?


Mumbles said:
Second, if he did such a thing (as opposed to holding for legal processing, or trying to deal with a flood of unaccompanied minors that immigration services was unprepared for - you know, the things that MAGAts and Bernie Stans falsely say are equal to Dolt 45/Sessions'/Miller's malicious treatment of refugees and immigrants), it would be a valid comparison regardless of what I said (which I would like to say I would oppose, and as someone who actually did oppose Obama's relatively benign immigration issues I think I can say I likely would, not that this was ever tested)
Click to expand...

Feel like we are trending away from the thread purpose, and I am not well versed currently to debate the specifics of how each administration addressed these things. A quick fact checker search reads as if the flood continued and was dealt with the same from Obama's to Trumps time in office. It might be useful to start or resurrect a thread to see how Biden's administration addresses this issue differently.


Mumbles said:
Third...you do understand why we've been distinguishing between "concentration camps" and "death camps" the throughout Dolt 45's presidency, right? When you don't address this sort of clear rhetoric and action, things can very easily get worse, as we've seen throughout world history - and the extra layer of for-profit prisons and garbage recordkeeping only gives leeway for "oopsies" like mass deaths due to disease outbreaks and the like, which can easily be covered up and actual help pad a corporation's bottom line.
Click to expand...

No. You know the comparison is terrible, but for some reason we need to slippery slope what "could" happen. Btw, are you saying we should be careful about rhetoric that dehumanizes our opponents unless terrible actions becomes acceptable? Because I know a B/C-list actress that made a horrible analogy implying the same thing..

There seems to be an avoidance of my direct question from everyone I ask here though.


Max_mang said:
I've seen Trumps run as president referred to as "Fascist-lite" much more than "Fascist". For the last 4 years, most folks I've seen have been comparing Trump to the early parts of Hitler's timeline, not the end part. The goal being to use hindsight to get ahead of the situation. His run also shares a lot in common w/ the rise of Mussolini.
Click to expand...

I know what you mean, and I have seen reporting that leans towards this for sure. More a cautionary tale vs some comparison of action. But when you put comparisons to someone so polarizing, anything but matching action to what that person is most known for seems like a cop out. There were plenty of populist presidents in US history or abroad that could compare without the baggage of the Hitler comparison.
 
d4m10n said:
Perhaps we have different tastes; I enjoyed the idea of a Disney+ series featuring a strong woman (in every sense) on the team.
Click to expand...

Do you think they're handed out a strict number of female roles at the inception of the series, and that one leaving the series means that no others can be written in to the show?

(Perhaps we'll see more Ashoka Tano going fwd?)
Click to expand...

Yes. The episode with her was a backdoor pilot for her own show.

Alas, Cara Dune remains canceled. How does this make the world a better place? According to the article you shared, Carano's public profile appears to be waxing rather than waning.
Click to expand...

Indeed. How does racists having less influence make the world a better place?
 
TragicMonkey said:
This may amaze you but in the past when an actor is found undesirable for a role it has been recast with a different actor!
Click to expand...

Disney have said that they're not doing so with Dune.

I'm unsurprised. She seemed unremarkable as a character to me.

FWIW, I just searched through the 5 pages of the Mandalorian thread for the words "Cara", "Dune", "Gina", and "Carano" and got no hits with any of them. It seems that if anybody here does truly love the character to the point that they think having the character be a regular on the show is worth giving a larger platform to Carano's bigotry, then they've not been very vocal about this adoration before it could be tied in to this "Political Correctness Gone MAD!" hysteria.
 
Last edited:
Cain said:
This has been litigated up-thread: Twitter is not real-life. For as many people complained about Gina Carano, vastly more said nothing at all.



And that's problematic because it encourages obnoxious cultural balkanization. It's probably not a good thing that entertainment is viewed through the lens of heightened tribal politics.



It sounds like you've internalized elements of naive libertarianism. Employers insist the state tramples their right of free association/free-contract when it requires dangerous jobs are made to be less dangerous, or that wages above some minimum must be paid. Of course, people who "agree" to work under such conditions are up against a background of coercion, so their employment is not necessarily free and voluntary.

Mill warned against "the tyranny of prevailing opinion." One of the externalities of your beautiful "markeplace" is that people will be more inclined to falsify their public views, causing them to behave more and more like robotic politicians of yesteryear. Those who are not "canceled" (or not cancelable) will play to the worst people in their tribe (see, for instance, the Republican Party).
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I feel a massive loss if actors are more likely to stay out of controversial politics in public forums. That's not a chilling effect I'm particularly concerned about.

Sure, if we got to a point where people like Bob who manages the Footlocker at the mall get predictably and regularly canned because they made an edgy tweet five years ago I'd start to be concerned. But I don't see the slope as quite that slippery.

I'm fine with CEOs and celebrities have as part of their terms of employment an understanding that their behavior in social media reflects on the brand they're associated with. That doesn't seem dystopian, or frankly very new. Before it was social media, they were already scrutinized. People just like to pretend that social media is different than other public facing speech. It isn't private, never was.

There are certainly instances of "cancel culture" that seem like injustices. But pretty much any powerful widely available tool will be misused. There are also cases where environmental regulations are oppressively enforced on particular businesses. Cars are great, but some people get drunk and crash them.I don't see the overall force of accountability for public behavior as a net negative.
 
smartcooky said:
It would help if I knew who the old guys who look like Mafia bosses are supposed to be, and who the naked people under the board are supposed to represent.
Click to expand...

Notice how the darkest figure under the board has wires from his neck going to a detonator button in front of one of the "mafia bosses"? Thats their reference to the conspiracy theory that Jews engineer black gang violence and grievance culture as part of their crusade against white people.

It's super duper racist batcrap crazy stuff.
 
Mumbles said:
No, they made a monetary judgement, not a moral one. She made herself a problem in terms of both publicity and a hostile work environment, so...out she goes.
Click to expand...

They called her posts "abhorrent." Given the available alternatives, it surprises me when so many decent people deliberately choose the head-in-sand argument. I agree that it ultimately comes down to economic self-interest, but that is itself contingent upon this moral dynamic. If a movie studio knew a celebrated writer/director/showrunner had been abusing cast and crew, but did some cost-benefit analysis and sided with him for economic reasons, would you be like, "Well, I can't really fault them for following the money. That's capitalism, fer ya."
 
Cavemonster said:
I'm fine with CEOs and celebrities have as part of their terms of employment an understanding that their behavior in social media reflects on the brand they're associated with. That doesn't seem dystopian, or frankly very new. Before it was social media, they were already scrutinized. People just like to pretend that social media is different than other public facing speech. It isn't private, never was.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of this...
https://www.cato.org/survey-reports...are#liberals-are-divided-political-expression

The survey found that many Americans think a person’s private political donations should impact their employment. Nearly a quarter (22%) of Americans would support firing a business executive who personally donates to Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s campaign. Even more, 31% support firing a business executive who donates to Donald Trump’s re‐​election campaign.

Support rises among political subgroups. Support increases to 50% of strong liberals who support firing executives who personally donate to Trump. And more than a third (36%) of strong conservatives support firing an executive for donating to Biden’s presidential campaign.
Click to expand...

The question does not distinguish between a chief executive (often the face of a company) and regular "executives" (and it's not clear if respondents would make the distinction). Nevertheless, enthusiasm to fire is probably not a good thing.
 
Cavemonster said:
Notice how the darkest figure under the board has wires from his neck going to a detonator button in front of one of the "mafia bosses"? Thats their reference to the conspiracy theory that Jews engineer black gang violence and grievance culture as part of their crusade against white people.

It's super duper racist batcrap crazy stuff.
Click to expand...

Actually, it loops back up to the nuke on the table.

First time I saw that, my first thought was that that pyramid at the bottom must have had one of the weird floating eye tops. Sure enough, later in the thread...

Yes, I know the original is Masonic. Conspiracy theorists and racial supremacists start with the conclusion, and bend everything to fit in. It's why white supremacists insist that the cold north made them hardy and hard-working, not like those lazy blacks who lounged around in the African sun, while black supremacists insist that the cold north made white devils evil and brutal, unlike the cooperation that the African sun cultivated.
 
Cain said:
They called her posts "abhorrent." Given the available alternatives, it surprises me when so many decent people deliberately choose the head-in-sand argument. I agree that it ultimately comes down to economic self-interest, but that is itself contingent upon this moral dynamic. If a movie studio knew a celebrated writer/director/showrunner had been abusing cast and crew, but did some cost-benefit analysis and sided with him for economic reasons, would you be like, "Well, I can't really fault them for following the money. That's capitalism, fer ya."
Click to expand...

You should check out the NFL sometime
 
smartcooky said:
It would help if I knew who the old guys who look like Mafia bosses are supposed to be, and who the naked people under the board are supposed to represent.
Click to expand...

The old guys are the ruling class, the people under the board are the working class.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom