Jump to content

To Cancel or Not To Cancel

Kermit

By Kermit
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11362

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

"Victim"?  To the extent she's a victim, she's a victim of her own lack of judgment.  Actions have consequences.

Since when was social shaming a problem?  I mean, admittedly we've somewhat changed what we think people should be shamed for.  We no longer shame people for being homosexual or for smoking a joint.  Now we shame people for expressing racist or misogynistic or homophobic views.  But the concept of social shaming is not new.  Nor is the concept of expressing abhorrent views new.

Ellen DeGeneres's show got (literally) canceled 25 years ago after she came out as gay.  I don't remember any right-wingers then decrying "cancel culture."  On the contrary, they were pretty fucking happy pursuing cancel culture so long as they dictated the culture.  But now that the culture has shifted and their views are deemed to be deviant, they're all fucking pissy about it.

Well, sorry, assholes--it's a round world.  What goes around comes around.

you've been spot on lately. 

that's the thing about what the republican party has become, and especially the christian right. they were the original cancel culture. 

every accusation is actually a confession.

what gina posted was dumb af. disney is a fairly progressive company (these days, certainly hasn't always been the case), and they told her to knock shit off, yet she persisted. she got what was coming to her. 

conservatives love cancel culture. they fucking love it. as long as they have the monopoly on who is getting canceled.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oSuJeff97

oSuJeff97 3435

Posted
Posted
Just now, RamjetFDO said:

So, this is all about timing then, and not offensive (to one side or the other) political twittering?  Gotcha.

I mean, we've kind of been over this. It's about whether or not someone who is actively employed by a company (LucasFilm) is violating that company's social media policy while being employed by them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15539

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

you've been spot on lately. 

that's the thing about what the republican party has become, and especially the christian right. they were the original cancel culture. 

every accusation is actually a confession.

what gina posted was dumb af. disney is a fairly progressive company (these days, certainly hasn't always been the case), and they told her to knock shit off, yet she persisted. she got what was coming to her. 

conservatives love cancel culture. they fucking love it. as long as they have the monopoly on who is getting canceled.

"Lately"?  Bro--I've always been spot on.  I define the spot.

. . . at least in my own mind.

 

As to Disney, they've been pretty progressive at least as far as I've been aware of them since at least the mid-80s.  I don't know when they started hosting Gay Day at Disneyland, but it was a think in the mid-80s.  And that's pretty fucking progressive for 1985.

I mean, Walt was a fucking fascist.  But Walt's been dead for like a century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Viper

Viper 12109

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, RamjetFDO said:

So, this is all about timing then, and not offensive (to one side or the other) political twittering?  Gotcha.

it does seem rather tame compared so some other stuff, but she was almost certainly already warned, and had political enemies ready to pounce and blow up anything from her with a hint of offense. and so our absurd culture war continues.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15539

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, mdmost said:

Now she's welcome to still start in shows and movies. They'll just be things like what Kevin Sorbo and Kirk Cameron star in that pretty much no one watches. 

Oh, fuck--this reminds me.  Do you remember when Kirk Cameron got Julie McCullough fired off Growing Pains because she had posed for Playboy?  Because I do.  Julie was awesome.

Fuck you, Kirk Cameron.  What goes around comes around.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105160

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

"Victim"?  To the extent she's a victim, she's a victim of her own lack of judgment.  Actions have consequences.

Since when was social shaming a problem?  I mean, admittedly we've somewhat changed what we think people should be shamed for.  We no longer shame people for being homosexual or for smoking a joint.  Now we shame people for expressing racist or misogynistic or homophobic views.  But the concept of social shaming is not new.  Nor is the concept of expressing abhorrent views new.

Ellen DeGeneres's show got (literally) canceled 25 years ago after she came out as gay.  I don't remember any right-wingers then decrying "cancel culture."  On the contrary, they were pretty fucking happy pursuing cancel culture so long as they dictated the culture.  But now that the culture has shifted and their views are deemed to be deviant, they're all fucking pissy about it.

Well, sorry, assholes--it's a round world.  What goes around comes around.

73121206.jpg

The GOP and "conservatives" in general have been all-in on LITERALLY cancelling people who they didn't agree with.  For decades -- fuck, centuries -- in this country.  Their complaint is NOT about cancel culture.  It's about the tables being turned on them.  That's it.  That's their entire problem.  Having done to them what they have done with impunity forever.

27 minutes ago, mdmost said:

Precisely this. She was told by her employer to knock it off and she then double and tripled down. Why? You got to own those damn libs, man. You've got to throw away your own Star Wars series on Disney+ because owning the libs is so much more important.

Yep.  Sometimes, shutting up is a good business decision.

I don't recall ANY "conservatives" having a problem with it when Michael Jordan -- the most popular and influential athlete in the world, and perhaps the most influential and well-known black man of his generation -- intentionally chose NOT to speak up for racial justice, or speak on any topic of discrimination, as a business decision, saying "Republicans buy shoes, too."  He "cancelled" his OWN voice, to make sure that he had broad appeal and was worth big bucks to Nike.....and I don't recall ANY "conservatives" criticizing him for his moral cowardice.

Do I think that everyone is human, and in most cases, a single episode of bad judgment shouldn't merit being "cancelled?"  Sure.  We can all find examples of someone who suffered grater consequences than were merited -- but be careful, "conservatives," some of those examples will be of people or businesses YOU decided to cancel.  But in the case of someone who has demonstrated a pattern....and was even warned and told to STFU....and kept doing it?  Nope, no sympathy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
aggie08

aggie08 21505

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, fakebusiness said:

 

You don't see the difference between comparing separating children into literal cages to Nazi Germany, and some MAGA loon comparing her plight (which I guess consists of the fear of Twitter censorship and watching the President that she voted for get impeached--and, soon to be, acquitted--for absolutely inciting a deadly riot) to the Nazi government propaganda that caused Germans to violently evict their Jewish neighbors? Of course you do, but you like being disingenuous

Edited by aggie08
  • Hook 'Em 9
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oSuJeff97

oSuJeff97 3435

Posted
Posted

Yeah how hard is it to realize how fucking lucky you are to have a prominent role in the most popular show of (arguably) the most popular franchise of all time, and so maybe you just have to bite your fucking tongue on social media as a "trade off?"

I don't particularly like the idea that this stuff happens unless you're actively causing harm to others or something, but it is what it is and if she was too fucking stupid to read the room and realize how lucky she is and just STFU about politics (especially after being warned) then that's on her.

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RPM

RPM 26323

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Oh, fuck--this reminds me.  Do you remember when Kirk Cameron got Julie McCullough fired off Growing Pains because she had posed for Playboy?  Because I do.  Julie was awesome.

Fuck you, Kirk Cameron.  What goes around comes around.

Thank you for reminding me of this. FTR, don't look up her current image.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RamjetFDO

RamjetFDO 10577

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, oSuJeff97 said:

I mean, we've kind of been over this. It's about whether or not someone who is actively employed by a company (LucasFilm) is violating that company's social media policy while being employed by them.

 

We can play these games all day ... was she actively employed?  Does her contract state what you said?  Does she get paid when not filming?  Is she legally bound by any agreement while not actively filming, employed, participating?  I have no clue.  They may very well say every bit of that, in which case, she's a dumbass for poking the bear.

The point is - it's a double standard.  Pick a set of rules and apply them.  EVERY COMPANY HAS THE RIGHT TO TERMINATE EMPLOYMENT.  I'm not debating that at all.  They could've tossed her because of her weight, that little smirk she has, or a pair of shoes she may have worn one day on set.  But, it sounds like you're projecting an excuse onto an action that we don't have all the facts for, other than the obvious "bad optics" of two big stars do something and one gets fired.  Regardless of timing.  Lots of people are getting caught by "cancel culture" for things they posted/tweeted years ago.  Why is this any different?

 

5 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

Did they each get a warning to quit?

Which one had to keep tweeting?

So.  Timing.

Same questions as above - was she "warned" while under employment?  Actively filming?  Does the contract state this?  I honestly don't know.  If it does, does it actually say "while employed"?  All reasonable questions.

I personally don't care about either Gina's or Pedro's tweets.  I think both are ridiculous and politically-exaggerated memes... but, whatever.  That's me.  If I owned a company and wanted to fire you because you made a bad decision, then you're gone.  But, if I say it's because of "Standard X" or "Policy Y", then I'd better be prepared to apply them evenly.

 

3 minutes ago, Viper said:

it does seem rather tame compared so some other stuff, but she was almost certainly already warned, and had political enemies ready to pounce and blow up anything from her with a hint of offense. and so our absurd culture war continues.

This.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RamjetFDO

RamjetFDO 10577

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, oSuJeff97 said:

Yeah how hard is it to realize how fucking lucky you are to have a prominent role in the most popular show of (arguably) the most popular franchise of all time, and so maybe you just have to bite your fucking tongue on social media as a "trade off?"

I don't particularly like the idea that this stuff happens unless you're actively causing harm to others or something, but it is what it is and if she was too fucking stupid to read the room and realize how lucky she is and just STFU about politics (especially after being warned) then that's on her.

 

Agree 100%.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ted Lange

Ted Lange 16110

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

You don't see the difference between comparing separating children into literal cages to Nazi Germany, and some MAGA loon comparing her plight (which I guess consists of the fear of Twitter censorship and watching the President that she voted for get impeached--and, soon to be, acquitted--for absolutely inciting a deadly riot) to the Nazi government propaganda that caused Germans to violently evict their Jewish neighbors? Of course you do, but you like being disingenuous

And as far as I know, he didn't repeatedly make comments that are bad for the Disney brand (CAPITILISM, SUCK IT COMMIE GOPers) nor was he asked to stop making Disney look bad yet continued to do so,    Other than that Pablo and Gina are the EXACT same situation/GOP Pretzel Logic 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
fakebusiness

fakebusiness 129

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

that's a sensical direct comparison, not that arguing with you is going to do anyone any good.

that's where conservatives lose the plot. but whatabout is a tired, stupid game.

I'm not conservative. However, I do realize 'cancel culture', whatever you want to call it, doesn't seem to be applied consistently. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RamjetFDO

RamjetFDO 10577

Posted
Posted
Just now, Longhornfan1024 said:

Would it be a problem if it is about offensive political twittering?

Yes.  Consistency.  "Offensive" is in the eye of the beholder.  I wasn't actually offended by either one of them.  So, neither should be fired.

Or, if I was forced to pick, Pedro's was FAR more offensive, so he should be fired.

Set up the rules and play by them... equally.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhornfan1024

Longhornfan1024 1707

Posted
Posted

Two things:

1.  The only free speech at issue here is Disney's.  This has zero to do with Gina's free speech rights.

2.  Conservatives really care about accountability until they are the ones being held accountable.  Whether it's the impeachment, the COVID response, BLM, taxes, etc.; all they do is rant on and on about personal accountability and responsibility.  But when it comes to them being held responsible they have to resort to claiming they are being treating like Jews during the Holocaust.  

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhornfan1024

Longhornfan1024 1707

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, RamjetFDO said:

Yes.  Consistency.  "Offensive" is in the eye of the beholder.  I wasn't actually offended by either one of them.  So, neither should be fired.

Or, if I was forced to pick, Pedro's was FAR more offensive, so he should be fired.

Set up the rules and play by them... equally.

Are you on the Board of Disney?  It's their opinion that matters here, not yours.  They get to decide if comparing kids in cages to kids in cages is more or less offensive than comparing kids in cages to . . . conservatives being held accountable for their actions?  I'm really not even sure what she's complaining about in her comparison (which kind of points to it being more offensive).  Regardless, they get to make the choice of what they view as acceptable.  If they don't agree with your bullshit false equivalency, that's perfectly within their discretion.  If you don't like their choice, you can stop supporting them.  

Edited by Longhornfan1024
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15539

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, fakebusiness said:

I'm not conservative. However, I do realize 'cancel culture', whatever you want to call it, doesn't seem to be applied consistently. 

It's absolutely applied consistently.  Hurt your employer's bottom line, you're going to get fired.

Now, it may certainly be that urbanites between the ages of 18 and 54 have a lot more buying power than people in rural areas over the age of 70.  And so violating the social mores of the former group is going to hurt an employer's bottom line a lot worse than hurting those of the latter group.  But what can I tell you?  Yay, capitalism!

 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gsoda3

gsoda3 3263

Posted
Posted
Would it be a problem if it is about offensive political twittering?
For four years comparing the state of our union to 1930s germany was in vogue but then Feb rolls around and suddenly people are getting cancelled for it? Yeah that's a problem. The standards have to be applied equally.
  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RamjetFDO

RamjetFDO 10577

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

Are you on the Board of Disney?  It's their opinion that matters here, not yours.  They get to decide if comparing kids in cages to kids in cages is more or less offensive than comparing kids in cages to . . . conservatives being held accountable for their actions?  I'm really not even sure what she's complaining about in her comparison (which kind of points to it being more offensive).  Regardless, they get to make the choice of what they view as acceptable.  If they don't agree with your bullshit false equivalency, that's perfectly within their discretion.  If you don't like their choice, you can stop supporting them.  

Ooh.  Hit a nerve, did I?  I'm not on the board ... and neither are you.  My point is, you're making assumptions.  I'm making assumptions.  I'm asking about facts of contracts, not your opinion.  Yes, they get to make their choice of what they view as acceptable ... I've said that several times above, and I believe I'm being consistent.

But, I'm also pointing out inconsistencies and wondering if there are actual policies beyond being visually hypocritical and missing out on clearing up (quoting you) bullshit false equivalency (/end quote) opportunities.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Underdog

Underdog 28718

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Yes, I feel like Disney would have fired Kathy Griffin from The Mandalorian if she had been playing Carano's character after what she posted about Trump. 

Didn't CNN cut her loose from their NYE program after that incident?  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Chuckie Finster

Chuckie Finster 22702

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

"Cancel Culture" is the dumbest fucking phrase in existence today.  It is an intellectually weak argument and it has never once been used in good faith.

If you suddenly pose a risk to your employer's bottom line and you are let go, that's not cancel culture. That's capitalism. And if you are a public figure, you need to understand the audience that your employer is appealing to.  If Sark suddenly started wearing maroon and white to every press conference and kept posting the aggy war hymn lyrics to his social media, even after multiple warnings, he would surely be "cancelled." 

But most of all, it's the hypocrisy.  People who will cry about cancel culture will then turn around and vote to censure a politician who had the audacity to have the opinion that the current impeachment proceedings are constitutional.  Everyone "cancels."  Everyone makes choices on who/what to support and not.  Whining about it is just another example of the current Republican platform, which is only one sentence long: I AM A VICTIM.

Instead of whining about the culture, maybe it would be useful to examine why advertising one set of beliefs doesn't tend to trigger mass backlash with the population at large. Nah, playing the "woe is me" card is much easier.

  • Hook 'Em 9
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

Different companies, private social media platforms, non-profit groups, trade groups, and communities apply different standards of what they expect from their members in terms of speech and behavior in the public eye.  Why is this so hard for some people to understand?  The government should have uniform rules (mainly NOT TO restrict).  But one company can shitcan somebody for a shitty tweet and another company can keep somebody employed until they murder somebody.  You can block somebody from your site/communication tool because you think their profile picture is scary, you can also let somebody stick around for years after denying the holocaust.  

15 years since the fucking Dixie Chicks incident and people just don't fucking get it.  You can't be denied a home loan, or the right to vote, or the right to pass freely from state to state just because of some shit you posted on twitter.  But you can sure as fuck be fired from your private sector employer.  

Why is this still a conversation?  We're a horribly idiotic country but this is a pretty basic concept to grasp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85427

Posted
Posted (edited)

Jesus Christ, stick to photoshop. 

Pedro tweeted that before the show aired.  He's tweeted nothing inflammatory since.

Gina tweeted twice since the show has aired, got told to stop, and then kept doing it.

Edited by Js1
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhornfan1024

Longhornfan1024 1707

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, RamjetFDO said:

Ooh.  Hit a nerve, did I?  I'm not on the board ... and neither are you.  My point is, you're making assumptions.  I'm making assumptions.  I'm asking about facts of contracts, not your opinion.  Yes, they get to make their choice of what they view as acceptable ... I've said that several times above, and I believe I'm being consistent.

But, I'm also pointing out inconsistencies and wondering if there are actual policies beyond being visually hypocritical and missing out on clearing up (quoting you) bullshit false equivalency (/end quote) opportunities.

You seem to be confusing yourself.  I asked a simple question if it would be an issue if it's just about offensive political twittering.  You said yes.  Now you seem to be saying it wouldn't be an issue.  My question had nothing to do with contracts or other variables that may be in play here.  It's a simple question of does it matter if Disney made the decision solely based on what it views as offensive political twittering?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nivek

Nivek 16945

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:
29 minutes ago, Longhornfan1024 said:
Would it be a problem if it is about offensive political twittering?

For four years comparing the state of our union to 1930s germany was in vogue but then Feb rolls around and suddenly people are getting cancelled for it? Yeah that's a problem. The standards have to be applied equally.

You are such a victim.  Jesus himself weeps at the suffering you endure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RamjetFDO

RamjetFDO 10577

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

You seem to be confusing yourself.  I asked a simple question if it would be an issue if it's just about offensive political twittering.  You said yes.  Now you seem to be saying it wouldn't be an issue.  My question had nothing to do with contracts or other variables that may be in play here.  It's a simple question of does it matter if Disney made the decision solely based on what it views as offensive political twittering?  

No.  My simple response was confusing.  Sorry 'bout that.

You asked if it were an issue if it was about (not "just") offensive political twittering.  I also said companies can fire anyone for anything.  But, if they claim the moral high ground because of "reasons", then if they don't apply those same "reasons" equally, then they don't get the moral high ground and deserve to be asked why they're being inconsistent.

It has NOTHING, in my opinion, to do with politics in this hypothetical discussion.  If Gina wore a t-shirt saying "Fuck Mickey Mouse" and was fired because it went against branding, but Pedro was actually well-known for posting "Fuck Mickey Mouse" memes for years prior to becoming a high-visibility and profitable Disney product... then yes, I would say "hey, what about..." 

So if you were confused that I meant "just" offensive political twittering was the reason, that was not my intent.  My intent has been consistency.  And there's none here.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nivek

Nivek 16945

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Different companies, private social media platforms, non-profit groups, trade groups, and communities apply different standards of what they expect from their members in terms of speech and behavior in the public eye.  Why is this so hard for some people to understand?  The government should have uniform rules (mainly NOT TO restrict).  But one company can shitcan somebody for a shitty tweet and another company can keep somebody employed until they murder somebody.  You can block somebody from your site/communication tool because you think their profile picture is scary, you can also let somebody stick around for years after denying the holocaust.  

15 years since the fucking Dixie Chicks incident and people just don't fucking get it.  You can't be denied a home loan, or the right to vote, or the right to pass freely from state to state just because of some shit you posted on twitter.  But you can sure as fuck be fired from your private sector employer.  

Why is this still a conversation?  We're a horribly idiotic country but this is a pretty basic concept to grasp.

Ramjet understands it fine, and he knows exactly what he is doing.  He is just an asshole for doing it.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

Pretty sure a company that pays as much attention to public image, customer experience, what children see/hear like Disney has a dozen ironclad provisos in their employment contracts that clearly state---especially in this day and age---any social media posts on your public facing account that are deemed incredibly insensitive...that's ground for termination.  

A girl I went to college with near Orlando got a job one summer being a Pocahontas at Disney World.  She was seen by an assistant manager smoking on break where guests could see her in costume.  She was terminated on the spot and escorted off the premises by security.  Disney makes categorical termination decisions every single day, political or otherwise.  A good friend that works for ABC News, is paid by Disney, and he has a very substantial online following.  He says every single year, Disney lawyers beat into his fucking brain, despite him being a deep political operator for decades, these are the things you don't fucking tweet about or talk about on-air.  You get one warning, on number two---you're being led out by armed guards and they'll probably go after you legally just to make an example out of you.  ]

The Mouse don't fuck around. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ted Lange

Ted Lange 16110

Posted
Posted (edited)

Handy rightwing / Clay Travis / Barstool dorks, CANCEL CULTURE! guide.   It is only considered CANCEL CULTURE! if it applies to views on the right.  

"Wouldn't you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, 'Get that son of a b**** off the field right now. Out! He's fired. He's fired'," Trump said.

GettyImages-618397140-1-e1591126522112.j

 

That is somehow not CANCEL CULTURE! to these fucking morons.

 

 

Edited by Ted Lange
  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...