Another actress canceled by Disney

Post Reply New Topic

Who gets to decide what is offensive? And I think that is the issue. For a very long time, people were not offended by blackface. People are not offended by the Confederate flag. How do you separate what we have become acclimatized too against something that is not offensive. Who gets to judge the offence: for example, the ancestors of the Confederacy or slavery? Are sexist jokes OK? What about to someone at the end of sexist abuse? Complicated.

While on the surface, your proposition seem reasonable (although I am unsure of the data source that supports it), it is also hard to measure. But the anti-cancel-culture argument is hinged on your proposition. I am not sure it is that straightforward.

The Confederate flag and blackface are not “fundamentally inoffensive.”

In fact, all that you mentioned are not “fundamentally inoffensive” when judged objectively.

I’m talking about something like the word “niggardly,” which has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the N-word, despite the resemblance in spelling.

I was offended by the sight of the World Trade Center in the resource room because it reminded me of the olden days when those towers still stood. But because no one else had an issue with the photo, I was outvoted and my feelings were tossed aside and I was told to toughen up and deal with it, part of life.

So yes, basically people do get to decide what is offensive and not and I think that goes by how many people are offended.

Now imagine if you are in a marginalized group, they had to deal with this for years and years because so many people didn't have a problem with it. Now that is what we call privilege. This is why we are where we are now and why we have always had activist groups and why people are saying privileged people don't get to decide what isn't offensive.

To be fair, that isn't a word we have in our daily vocabulary so people are going to find it questionable when someone decides to use that word just to be fancy and smart by using a big word and they somehow picked that word.

I guess I have not seen that particular controversy. And I am not sure that the argument over cancel culture is really centered on that. How many people are upset? You did reference too many people being offended. Are people boycotting Shakespeare? I guess I can't this the argument you are presenting now in your original comment quoted. Personally, I don't use the word because it is archaic.

I am also unclear how this relates to the actor's comments. Which I assume by this post you would categorize as not fundamentally inoffensive.

Sorry, I am just a little lost on your point in the context of the thread.

Last edited by Jiheisho on 12 Feb 2021, 5:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I was talking about “offense” in general.

As a reaction against “cancel culture.”

Obviously, the person who was “canceled” seems quite insensitive and doesn’t seem to have a grasp of the true impact of something like the Holocaust.

It offends me that anyone would defend these two overt symbols of racism.

It offends me, too.....trust me!

OMG! You’re saying that Republicans are Tolerant!! !! !
Never thought I’d see th Day!! !! Hallelujah!! !! !

Ironically most of the responses to this subject are proving Gina Corano’s statement correct.

That might usually be the case, but your posts on this thread indicate to me that you’re confused about what Gina Carrano actually said (or at least you were when you started the thread), and as a result confused over what the controversy is about.

Take this for example.



To claim she was being a Nazi sympathizer with her tweets is completely and utterly back to front, which is what makes me suspect you didn’t read them in full, and are probably still paying more attention to the headlines than to what her tweets actually said.

Carano wrote about Jews being “beaten in the street by neighbors” as a way of explaining why it was so easy later on for Nazi soldiers to round Jews up. Her point was to warn about where dehumanization leads.

The fact that she uses Nazi Germany as her go-to analogy for political persecution shows that in some ways she isn’t as different to the leftists that people like you identify with. It might have something to do with those high school history lessons you mentioned!

The difference – and the reason for the controversy – is that those who have the power to manufacture outrage over these incidents decide that some people should be allowed to make Nazi analogies and some people shouldn’t. Certain sections of the media spent four years comparing Donald Trump to Hitler after all.

Here are her tweets, for the record:





This paragraph is just more evidence of your confusion on this matter. See above.

It's all the same cycle.

Reactionary posts something in poor taste; the optics are horrendous, and the reactionary gets cancelled in some form and then right wing grifters like Ben Shapiro immediately sweep in to capitalize on the story with their own twisted narrative for that good $$$ and to placate their biased hankering audience which boosts their ratings.

Oh and I personally think she deserves it, but that could just be me being petty. It's the company's decision how they want to enforce their rules anyway.

I saw what she wrote, my opinion still stands though. You are entitled to yours as well.

Sorry to burst your bubble, kid, but I am in complete agreement with Jiheisho, not you...... so get over yourself.

The problem seems to be that some people have a problem with being able to seperate "offensive speech" from "speech which offends them"...

In this case, some have taken an observation that (objectively, based on the actual words used) appears to be trying to show how encouraging "hatred" of a group for a given (shared) characteristic can lead to violence against them, and have decided it is "offensive" to them...

What reason they could find to see a message such as this, which appears aimed at trying to lessen the hatred being demonstrated, as offensive would be an interesting question:
Could it be that they don't see hatred towards members of a group for their political beliefs as being "wrong" (regardless of which beliefs they hold)?
Could it be that they don't see hatred towards members of a given group because of their specific political beliefs as being wrong (but the same actions towards members of another group would be wrong)?
Could it be that they have attributed a specific group as the intended "victims" in the quote, but have spent years demonising them and referring to them in a specific manner, where this quote would suggest that their own actions allign with the manner in which they had previously described the "victims"?
Or is there some other reason?

My personal thoughts: If you have a problem with a group's beliefs, showing hatred towards the members of the group (treating the "person"\people in a way you would not wish to be treated yourself) is the best way to encourage both their decision to hold onto their belief, as well as to also fight back, leading to violence. If the effort put into attacking the "people" was instead turned to the subject of their individual beliefs, trying to understand what led to them, rather than simply placing a subjective (and, if you disagree with the group, this is liable to be generally a negative) basis for them, you are more likely to either convince them to change their beliefs, or possibly, find that the reason behind them isn't the sinsiter one you envisioned, and that possibly the idea they had was worthwhile...

My observation of Today’s world is that it is not what is said or what is done that is the problem. Rather it is the tribal affiliation of who said it or who did it. That is what causes the outrage.