The Mandalorian

tekbow

I don't think the issue is 'liberal views' vs 'Conservative' views, because the above is often a mischaracterisation, especially in the US, of evidence supported consensus vs stuff that often just isnt true.

digitalscream

tekbow said:

I don't think the issue is 'liberal views' vs 'Conservative' views, because the above is often a mischaracterisation, especially in the US, of evidence supported consensus vs stuff that often just isnt true.

I'm talking about this specific instance, with Gina Carano.

If you look at what actually happened, she was targeted pretty early on exclusively because of her conservative views. She hadn't said or done anything remotely controversial at that point. That's why I'm talking about her political views; they're at the centre of why this has happened.

To be clear: I dislike her political views, and completely disagree with all of them. However, I also disagree vehemently with the tactics used by the Twitterati like this.

fretmeister

digitalscream said:

fretmeister said:

crunchman said:

Thinking about this, and reading what has been said above, the comments about the Jews were stupid but I'm not sure it's a sacking offence.  Disney could have issued a statement that they were her personal views, and did not reflect the company's values.

I'm sure there are hundreds of people who work in their theme parks, back office, and production, who share similar views to Gina Carano.  Are they all going to be sacked?  This does smack of giving into mob rule.

It's about her 5th offence.

She's been spoken to before and she's ignored it.

Only if you count things like the pronouns non-issue and the photo which was deliberately misread in order to make an issue out of it, as detailed above.

In fact, can you define "offence" in this context, and list the problems with what she's supposed to have done with no ambiguity or tortured misreading of her words?

And...can you honestly say that you definitely think this would've happened if she was espousing liberal views in the same way, as opposed to conservative views?

What is the liberal version of saying not having popular political views is the same as being Jewish in Nazi Germany?

digitalscream

fretmeister said:

digitalscream said:

fretmeister said:

crunchman said:

Thinking about this, and reading what has been said above, the comments about the Jews were stupid but I'm not sure it's a sacking offence.  Disney could have issued a statement that they were her personal views, and did not reflect the company's values.

I'm sure there are hundreds of people who work in their theme parks, back office, and production, who share similar views to Gina Carano.  Are they all going to be sacked?  This does smack of giving into mob rule.

It's about her 5th offence.

She's been spoken to before and she's ignored it.

Only if you count things like the pronouns non-issue and the photo which was deliberately misread in order to make an issue out of it, as detailed above.

In fact, can you define "offence" in this context, and list the problems with what she's supposed to have done with no ambiguity or tortured misreading of her words?

And...can you honestly say that you definitely think this would've happened if she was espousing liberal views in the same way, as opposed to conservative views?

What is the liberal version of saying not having popular political views is the same as being Jewish in Nazi Germany?

C'mon, dude, you're better than that. You know I was referring to your "It's about her 5th offence" comment. If you're going to use the history of her comments as part of your argument, the detail should support that and it should be trivial to answer any of those questions.

munckee

According to the story she was labeled a racist for not specifying her support for BLM. It also says John Boyega and Pedro Pascal have aired their political views. 

As clumsy as this comment was its a dangerous place if there is picking a choosing which political views are acceptable and which aren’t. There’s no group so intolerant as the liberal mob. 

I think on this occasion her comments were such that she should have known it would kill her career. 

fretmeister

digitalscream said:

fretmeister said:

digitalscream said:

fretmeister said:

crunchman said:

Thinking about this, and reading what has been said above, the comments about the Jews were stupid but I'm not sure it's a sacking offence.  Disney could have issued a statement that they were her personal views, and did not reflect the company's values.

I'm sure there are hundreds of people who work in their theme parks, back office, and production, who share similar views to Gina Carano.  Are they all going to be sacked?  This does smack of giving into mob rule.

It's about her 5th offence.

She's been spoken to before and she's ignored it.

Only if you count things like the pronouns non-issue and the photo which was deliberately misread in order to make an issue out of it, as detailed above.

In fact, can you define "offence" in this context, and list the problems with what she's supposed to have done with no ambiguity or tortured misreading of her words?

And...can you honestly say that you definitely think this would've happened if she was espousing liberal views in the same way, as opposed to conservative views?

What is the liberal version of saying not having popular political views is the same as being Jewish in Nazi Germany?

C'mon, dude, you're better than that. You know I was referring to your "It's about her 5th offence" comment. If you're going to use the history of her comments as part of your argument, the detail should support that and it should be trivial to answer any of those questions.

It's easy to define.

She has been reprimanded by her employer multiple times for social media posts. Those are the offences. It doesn't matter whether the rest of us consider those to be offences or not. 

EricTheWeary

crunchman said:

Thinking about this, and reading what has been said above, the comments about the Jews were stupid but I'm not sure it's a sacking offence.  Disney could have issued a statement that they were her personal views, and did not reflect the company's values.

I'm sure there are hundreds of people who work in their theme parks, back office, and production, who share similar views to Gina Carano.  Are they all going to be sacked?  This does smack of giving into mob rule.

But they don't have a public forum. And maybe they would be sacked for espousing anti Semitic views on twitter but it wouldn't make the news. I remember at work we had someone who shared something inappropriate about work on facebook and her FB friends included colleagues so it got back to management. She was disciplined for bringing her employer into disrepute but it didn't make the Guardian website. Who would be interested? 
It seems unlikely that Disney would try to act as thought police for thousands of employees but presumably they would expect any of them who have a significant social media presence to up hold the values of the organisation.* I don't see that this has anything to do with mob rule. 




* although Disney's niece maintains that Walt was a racist and anti Semitic so arguably Carano was!  

digitalscream

fretmeister said:

digitalscream said:

fretmeister said:

digitalscream said:

fretmeister said:

crunchman said:

Thinking about this, and reading what has been said above, the comments about the Jews were stupid but I'm not sure it's a sacking offence.  Disney could have issued a statement that they were her personal views, and did not reflect the company's values.

I'm sure there are hundreds of people who work in their theme parks, back office, and production, who share similar views to Gina Carano.  Are they all going to be sacked?  This does smack of giving into mob rule.

It's about her 5th offence.

She's been spoken to before and she's ignored it.

Only if you count things like the pronouns non-issue and the photo which was deliberately misread in order to make an issue out of it, as detailed above.

In fact, can you define "offence" in this context, and list the problems with what she's supposed to have done with no ambiguity or tortured misreading of her words?

And...can you honestly say that you definitely think this would've happened if she was espousing liberal views in the same way, as opposed to conservative views?

What is the liberal version of saying not having popular political views is the same as being Jewish in Nazi Germany?

C'mon, dude, you're better than that. You know I was referring to your "It's about her 5th offence" comment. If you're going to use the history of her comments as part of your argument, the detail should support that and it should be trivial to answer any of those questions.

It's easy to define.

She has been reprimanded by her employer multiple times for social media posts. Those are the offences. It doesn't matter whether the rest of us consider those to be offences or not. 

OK - but you clearly do, given your comments prior to this point, so surely you can answer those questions for yourself?

It's absolutely clear that she's been targeted by the Twitter mob for quite some time, which is what I've been getting at. Switching to, "Meh, it's up to her employer" at this point isn't a good argument...?

menamestom

I’d be more gutted if Baby Yoda had of said it to be honest, because the series wouldn’t be the same without him.

digitalscream

EricTheWeary said:

But they don't have a public forum. And maybe they would be sacked for espousing anti Semitic views on twitter but it wouldn't make the news. 

<snip>


* although Disney's niece maintains that Walt was a racist and anti Semitic so arguably Carano was!  

I might've missed something, but at what point was she anti-Semitic?

Just mentioning the Holocaust doesn't make a statement anti-Semitic. She hasn't denied it, or said that it was a good thing. On the contrary, she says (by implication) that it's a very bad thing.

At worst, her comment was excessive hyperbole using Jewish persecution as a poor analogy.

That isn't anti-Semitic, by any stretch, it's just a ridiculous exaggeration of her own situation.

By contrast, consider an earlier post of hers which people used to try to get her cancelled - the one where she posted the picture of the guy refusing to salute Hitler, along with text saying (paraphrased) "Be more like this guy". The same Twitter crew called her a Nazi sympathiser on the basis of that photo, which is straight-up defamation.

Which is worse?

The usual argument is, "Oh, she has more followers", which turns this into a "One rule for those famous people, and another rule for us down here" situation, even though they're on the same platform with the same people looking at the posts.

The point is...

- The "Beep-boop" profile change isn't evidence of her being transphobic, it's just evidence that it went over the #cancelginacarano people's heads by being too clever.
- The Nazi-refuser photo isn't evidence of her being a Nazi sympathiser (quite the opposite), but the #cancelginacarano people were too stupid to read and just saw a photo that set their hair on fire.
- This one isn't anti-Semitic, because it doesn't say anything bad about Jewish folk or support bad things being done to them, but because it mentions Jewish folk in relation to the awful things that happened the #cancelginacarano supporters are using it.

Anybody else seeing a pattern here?

Incidentally, for everybody who's insistent that cancel culture isn't a thing, could you explain to me why this is trending, just like it does with everybody else who's been cancelled over the last few years if it's not? Do any of you really believe it's a coincidence?

fob

fretmeister said:

It's easy to define.

She has been reprimanded by her employer multiple times for social media posts. Those are the offences. It doesn't matter whether the rest of us consider those to be offences or not. 

Do you think your employer should be able to fire you for this post? Let's say they deem it to be an offence even if we wouldn't.

TimmyO

If only there was a moderator around who could split this argument out from a sci-fi thread ... :-) 

digitalscream

TimmyO said:

If only there was a moderator around who could split this argument out from a sci-fi thread ... :-) 

That did occur to me, but it'd be bad form for me to do it and I didn't want to wake the others up...

Bridgehouse

digitalscream said:

TimmyO said:

If only there was a moderator around who could split this argument out from a sci-fi thread ... :-) 

That did occur to me, but it'd be bad form for me to do it and I didn't want to wake the others up...

It’s past my bedtime already now, but I’m sure I can split this one out. It’s a useful discussion, but it’s probably best served in a separate thread and in a separate sub forum

fretmeister

fob said:

fretmeister said:

It's easy to define.

She has been reprimanded by her employer multiple times for social media posts. Those are the offences. It doesn't matter whether the rest of us consider those to be offences or not. 

Do you think your employer should be able to fire you for this post? Let's say they deem it to be an offence even if we wouldn't.

If it was against the terms of the contract I signed and the against the ethos of the firm I had agreed to represent - then yes. Absolutely. Particularly if I had already been warned before.

darthed1981

...so given the upcoming thread split, this one deserves to live...

Which story thread will they follow up in Mando S3?   Pretty obvious the Oshoka show will follow the Thrawn story, we already know we will see a gangster show on Tatooine for Boba...

Most likely, we will see a return to Mandalore, with Bo Katan and the Darksaber.

Grogu is sure to be back, possibly sent with a message from Master Luke?

Probable smackdown between Mando and Bo Katan...

...and we wont see any of it for a couple of years!

DiscoStu

Yeah it'll most likely be about the Darksaber and who is the leader of Mandalore.  

fob

fretmeister said:

fob said:

Do you think your employer should be able to fire you for this post? Let's say they deem it to be an offence even if we wouldn't.

If it was against the terms of the contract I signed and the against the ethos of the firm I had agreed to represent - then yes. Absolutely. Particularly if I had already been warned before.

So you have no personal freedom of expression? Everything you say or do that has any public viewing has to be approved by your employer. They can also act retrospectively.

fretmeister

fob said:

fretmeister said:

fob said:

Do you think your employer should be able to fire you for this post? Let's say they deem it to be an offence even if we wouldn't.

If it was against the terms of the contract I signed and the against the ethos of the firm I had agreed to represent - then yes. Absolutely. Particularly if I had already been warned before.

So you have no personal freedom of expression? Everything you say or do that has any public viewing has to be approved by your employer. They can also act retrospectively.

It's a very simple concept. If I have agreed to my freedom of expression being limited in the contract I have willingly signed then it is my fault if I breach those terms. If I no longer want to be bound to my contractual promise (for which I am being paid) then I should quit before breaching the terms.

This is not limited to the entertainment business. It's common in all professions where the employee is representing their employer or their employers customers / clients.

Do you really think all of Amazon's accountants agree with them paying so little tax? Do you think all lawyers representing a political party will vote for them? They all have the ability to discuss their own views with their friends and family in a personal capacity.

But going on social media to effectively contradict the aims / ethos / terms of their employer / client is very different. 

The "no personal freedom of expression" is a canard. The person accepting the offer of employment had the personal freedom to agree or reject those restrictions by accepting or declining the job offer. They can even change their mind later by resigning.

fob

Is it acceptable for an employer to have a contract that robs you of your basic rights? If you don't build 40 thingamajigs by 5pm we get to stab you in the eye with a fork. Ah ah ah - you signed the contract, we're allowed.

What professions would not be subject to 'representing their employer'? Surely, any employer can say 'fretmeister likes guitars which is against our ethos - he's fired'.