Joined: 3 Nov 2015 Age: 39 Posts: 5,590 Location: canada
05 Mar 2021, 8:09 pm
binstein wrote:
Some of the transcript: And finally new rule, liberals need a "Stand Your Ground Law" for Cancel Culture, so that when the woke mob comes after you for some ridiculous offense, you'll stand your ground. Stop apologizing! Because i can't keep up anymore with who's on the s**t list.......
And this muddying the water is unfortunate because Cancel Culture is real, it's insane and it's growing exponentially, and it's coming to a neighborhood near you. If you think it's just for celebrities, no, in an era where everyone is online, everyone is a public figure ........
The Mandalorians' Gina Carano is a person i'd never heard of and resent that I have now. She's some conservative wrestling chick who kicks ass on a show I wouldn't watch if i was in prison, and she made some nazi analogy. Who doesn't these days? You're like the nazis is the new "I don't like you". It's always ok with "Trump The Nazi". That disqualifies her for marching around planet who gives a s**t in a helmet?
By the way, "You can't work in Hollywood if you don't believe what we believe", yeah in the 50s that's exactly what the left complained they were being told.
------- Note: Although I agree with what most of what he says in the video, he shows statistics, statistics that came from libertarian institutions, which are to take them with great skepticism.
Oh well, it's just the point that was made here is to stand your ground but when Hollywood or at least Disney, does not like their employees standing their ground then perhaps that is not the best option, and other alternatives may be considered?
Joined: 21 Feb 2011 Age: 56 Gender: Male Posts: 34,284
06 Mar 2021, 4:20 am
Brictoria wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
A question posed about providing proof of cancel culture on the Dr Suess thread produced reactions that resulted in the thread being locked.
So I'll pose the question here, what proof is there that Gina Carano is a "victim" of so called cancel culture and not a victim of her own inability to curtail her inflammatory views.
This time keep your responses civil
Considering the emotive and judgemental language used in the question, it might be better if you outlined what you would accept as "proof" - The langauge used could give rise to a belief that even a signed letter by Disney executives that "cancel culture" was the reason for her firing may not be suficient, and so anything less than the expected level of "proof" would be liable to provoke further arguments as to whether it was sufficient.
There has already been a large amount of "proof" provided in the thread (from both sides), so most "undecided" people should have sufficient information to come to their own conclusions already. At this point, it would be much more productive for those who feel they haven't seen enough information to indicate with some degree of specificity what they would require (either in terms of new evidence, or explanation\clarification of existing information) to be supplied in order to assist them to make their own decision on what the cause of her firing was...
The point here is that Lucasfilm said in the statement. “Nevertheless, her social media posts denigrating people based on their cultural and religious identities are abhorrent and unacceptable.”
Employees who engage in publicly denigrating a group are open to being not hired. In Australia we have a racial vilification act and she would have likely breached that act with her social media posts.
Joined: 6 Mar 2021 Age: 36 Gender: Male Posts: 1,508
06 Mar 2021, 5:07 pm
There's a reason that, when they owned an NHL team, Dysney called it the "Mighty" ducks. Other owners removed the "Mighty" tag which didn't fit their personality and way of thinking and treating people.
Joined: 21 Feb 2011 Age: 56 Gender: Male Posts: 34,284
07 Mar 2021, 1:39 am
Fixxer wrote:
There's a reason that, when they owned an NHL team, Dysney called it the "Mighty" ducks. Other owners removed the "Mighty" tag which didn't fit their personality and way of thinking and treating people.
I have scoured google and can't find what you are claiming?
Joined: 21 Feb 2011 Age: 56 Gender: Male Posts: 34,284
09 Mar 2021, 2:52 am
binstein wrote:
Ball wrote:
RIP Pepe. You just got cancelled (of course)
George Orwell's prophecy is closer than ever.
A tad overdramatic don't you think?
On a seperate note It always amuses me how the same people who laud the robustness of western civilisation are so frightened of the downfall of civilisation due to not being able to watch some crap cartoon
Joined: 22 Feb 2021 Age: 39 Gender: Male Posts: 134
09 Mar 2021, 3:37 am
cyberdad wrote:
binstein wrote:
Ball wrote:
RIP Pepe. You just got cancelled (of course)
George Orwell's prophecy is closer than ever.
A tad overdramatic don't you think?
On a seperate note It always amuses me how the same people who laud the robustness of western civilisation are so frightened of the downfall of civilisation due to not being able to watch some crap cartoon
It's not about that (I don't care about anything related to looney toons or western animation) yes, it's a exaggeration to equate it to it but the resemblence is there, and is about setting a precedent, it isn't an isolated case and goes along with people wanting to diminish and restricting fantasies because they are "offensive", perpetuating myths and forcing your own personal ideology (and emotional issues) onto others by force.
Joined: 21 Feb 2011 Age: 56 Gender: Male Posts: 34,284
09 Mar 2021, 5:09 am
binstein wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
binstein wrote:
Ball wrote:
RIP Pepe. You just got cancelled (of course)
George Orwell's prophecy is closer than ever.
A tad overdramatic don't you think?
On a seperate note It always amuses me how the same people who laud the robustness of western civilisation are so frightened of the downfall of civilisation due to not being able to watch some crap cartoon
It's not about that (I don't care about anything related to looney toons or western animation) yes, it's a exaggeration to equate it to it but the resemblence is there, and is about setting a precedent, it isn't an isolated case and goes along with people wanting to diminish and restricting fantasies because they are "offensive", perpetuating myths and forcing your own personal ideology (and emotional issues) onto others by force.
I don't disagree their reasoning can be irritating, but life is pretty flimsy if people can't live without GIna Carano, Pepe le Pew and Dr Suess
Joined: 22 Feb 2021 Age: 39 Gender: Male Posts: 134
09 Mar 2021, 5:21 am
cyberdad wrote:
I don't disagree their reasoning can be irritating, but life is pretty flimsy if people can't live without GIna Carano, Pepe le Pew and Dr Suess
It's not like this stops with Pepe Le Pew and Dr Suess, it keeps going, and everytime the absurdity increases (calling for the banning of Santa Claus imagery and symbolism because of #1 "white male privilege" and #2 a "sex predator" who likes children to sit on his lap, would not be suprising at this point), so the question is, what's next and who's next?
Last edited by binstein on 09 Mar 2021, 5:30 am, edited 2 times in total.