Pwning libtard noobs with knowledge bombs?
Gina Carano Sueing for Wrongful Termination from Disney
- Thread starter valkyrie013
- Start date
Oh, we always knew and we always cared. The big difference was the filters between us and the celebrity in question.
Once upon a time, if an actor wanted to make their political ideas known to the general public, they could practically only do so through an interview. Or by supporting this or that candidate in some election. Let's say that in these contexts it was difficult to bring out the most extreme ideologies. Sometimes there were reports of inappropriate behavior on set, but let's say they were more manageable on a PR level.
Now practically anyone can drink a few too many drinks, take out their cell phone and write on X what they really think about ethnic minorities, homosexuals or Jews. And I don't know how many times someone is surprised to discover that when they write something hateful and horrible, people don't take it well. And this someone gets offended.
Forgetting that...
Seriously, shouldn't these people have an agent or social media manager telling them "DON'T DO IT!"?
Seriously, shouldn't these people have an agent or social media manager telling them "DON'T DO IT!"?
Did some one take her phone away, and then give it back after they were fired or quit?
Sure? Why not.
The Carano case isn't a free speech issue. It's whether or not they treated her with the same standards on her free speech as they do all other Disney employees. Since they say she was let go due to her Nazi metaphor then all you have do is look and see if they are firing or refuse to rehire other Disney employees using Nazi metaphors when talking about politics.
I believe she was not fired. They just didn't renew her contract or sign her to another one. Thus the idea that you can sue to get your job back doesn't make sense if you were no longer even a employee. At best she can maybe get some money for some kind of political discrimination by pointing out all the other Disney employess who have made Nazi comparisons online, yet stay employed.
That to me seems to be where the whole case is. Was she treated equally with other Disney employees when talking about politics.
I believe she was not fired. They just didn't renew her contract or sign her to another one. Thus the idea that you can sue to get your job back doesn't make sense if you were no longer even a employee. At best she can maybe get some money for some kind of political discrimination by pointing out all the other Disney employess who have made Nazi comparisons online, yet stay employed.
That to me seems to be where the whole case is. Was she treated equally with other Disney employees when talking about politics.
Forgetting that...
I'm a big fan of XKCD, but this makes the common mistake of equating the right of free speech with the First Amendment. They are 2 separate things. The Constitution considers our rights to exist independently (granted by the creator). The First Amendment prevents the government from violating that right. Its just that its not illegal for private entities to violate your right to free speech. So your right to free speech can be violated without violating your first amendment rights.
Uh sorry.
The point remains. She could have become a favorite of nerds everywhere (which allows for more revenue than other audiences
) and she threw it all away because of her own stupidity. You can't even blame "the environment", given that it was also repeatedly explained to her where she was going wrong.
They like that drywall.
She didn't really fit the Disney brand at the end of the day. Disney productions are full of tiny, scrawny girls who somehow kick grown men's asses all day. Carano is a girl who can actually kick your ass in real life, so of course they want nothing to do with her.She could have become a favorite of nerds everywhere (which allows for more revenue than other audiences
Uh sorry.
The point remains. She could have become a favorite of nerds everywhere (which allows for more revenue than other audiences
It was a principled stand but also a dumb one as well. She choose her principles over doing the smart thing which is to shut up and take the money. The interesting question is whether or not it was ethical. On one hand she has some views I don't consider to be ethical when it comes to her views on Trans people, but she was also sort of drawn into a fight she didn't really start either and I have seen some of things people were calling her. "Dumb Bitch and things of that sort and worst." Pretty much the standard asshole on asshole sewer fights that seem commonplace in so many parts of the internet and I guess made famous on Twitter and Youtube comment sections.
Generally speaking nobody came out that issue looking all that good though Disney might have been hit the worst. Carano can make tons of money being a MAGA queen and all the people wanting her cancelled of course just moved onto the next Cancel Target. Disney lost out on a show that might have been successful and who knows. Maybe the franchise would be in a better place than it is now. The Mandalorian had healed lots of wounds made from the Sequel trilogy and her being fired was sort of the lighting rod that set them back. That and them dumping all those OBI-Wan scripts for new ones. I am convinced that show would have been better if they had went with whatever their first instinct was.
I find it very hard to imagine she could make anything even close to the kind of money through the MAGA dipshits as she could have made as one of the main characters of a Star Wars series, and I doubt Rangers of the New Republic would have really had that big of an impact on the overall franchise.
Hence the lawsuit, I suspect.
I agree but she will still do fine. But even in Star Wars I think she was really not going to have a long lasting career. Her main appeal is she not only looks like a kick ass women, she is one since she was MMA fighter. You want women fighter then she is perfect because she already looks the part. Your not going to have train someone and have her bulk up or make people wander how this 5"5 girl is kicking all these dudes butts. She is already perfect for action movies. Only that stuff will fade as she gets older and then she will have to get by on just acting talent and well I think she is okay as a actor but also limited. Still she could still make money for years and years afterwards by just doing Star Wars conventions and things like that.
I didn't find anything wrong with it either. I think the firing had more to do with her refusing to use pronouns rather than the Nazi remark, but the firing certainly makes the latter true and truth hurts. So be it. Disney doesn't really need a reason to fire her and frankly if I were her I wouldn't want that job back to begin with. The series she was on should have ended after season 2. Season 3 and onward is just milking the concept into the ground. Beyond that the Star Wars and the Marvel franchises have turned into garbage losing tons of money and subs for Disney plus have dropped substantially. The only thing keeping Disney afloat right now is its parks. She needs to just move on and enjoy watching the fascists implode upon themselves.
Last edited:
I just looked it up. Apparently they are at 153 million subscribers (Their fourth highest quarter since launch.)
I am very bad at math, but I believe that puts them at roughly three billion dollars a year?
I don't know how they're going to survive.
Edit: I'm not even sure now how I arrived at that figure. Can someone else check my math on that? 153 million subscribers, approximately 96 dollars a year each? I feel like my number is way under...shouldn't it actually be 14 billion?
Last edited:
It's the Declaration of Independence that posits that people "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights", not the Constitution.
The Constitution does affirm the existence of unenumerated rights in the Ninth Amendment, but it does not posit either that they are (all) unalienable or that they are God-given. It's not the greatest of stretches to take Amendment IX to be referring to God-given rights, but the text is literally open to other interpretations as well, such as that it refers to natural rights, which do not necessarily depend upon any sort of theism to posit, although of course many religions have their own dogma concerning them.
John Locke probably had a measure of influence on the founding fathers:
According to Locke, there are three natural rights:
According to Locke, there are three natural rights:
- Life: everyone is entitled to live.
- Liberty: everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it does not conflict with the first right.
- Estate: everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it does not conflict with the first two rights