Differences of opinion are not tolerated today. And it is getting worse. Each political side 1-ups the other. Scary world we live in right now.
5 Likes
If we look at this from an acting perspective, this can only help. In my opinion, this show suffers badly from chronic poor acting. While she was probably the worst, she wasn’t the only stiff as a board character on the show. I mean, when Bill Burr looks like one of your better actors, that’s ummm, yeah, not great.
1 Like
I completely agree with you, and I say this as a slightly right-leaning individual.
Now, why can’t our elected officials figure this out? The phrase “Absolute power corrupts absolutely” is probably the most accurate reason. It’s classic divide and conquer.
2 Likes
I read that stuff on twitter.
Really not surprised she’s off the show.
I did enjoy her character while she was on tho.
All I will say is Freedom of Speech keeps you from being imprisoned for saying stuff. It doesn’t mean your job can’t fire you. Disney saw her comments she made on multiple occasions, weighed the pros and cons of keeping her, and cut her. She has every right to say her opinion, Disney has the right to fire her. Whether we like it or not.
8 Likes
Yep! The First Amendment protects speech being infringed or censored by government actors with exceptions.
Contained in the same First Amendment is Disney’s right to associate (or the corollary to disassociate) with whomever they please with exceptions (those being race, gender, sex, religion, etc.)
2 Likes
A lot of people sadly don’t understand freedom of speech in the Constitution and what it details. Words can lead to consequences and actions if you like it or not.
Just like here on the CHU forums and comments, as we want people to express their opinions, we can also boot you for any reason. You have no freedom of speech here if we deem it so. This is CHUs house and rules, if you don’t like them, then don’t agree to them when registering. Sadly we only have had to boot a few people but that’s just because they were clearly trolls…
1 Like
I also think there’s a big difference between hate speech and opinions. For example, if you devalue the lives of a specific group of individuals that are different from you, that’s not an opinion. That’s hate speech.
4 Likes
But if you devalue the business of a good-for-nothing, money-grubbing, fly-by-night store variant comic dealer, that’s just pure patriotism!
1 Like
Well, I think you can hate all you want as an opinion, doesn’t make it right. Should someone goto jail for saying they “hate” something… no. But if they’re speech or hate causes a reaction that leads to people being hurt or threatens others, then by all means, you should be held accountable.
I can say I want to kill Drunkwooky for being an ugly furry creature… can’t go to jail unless I actually try to kill him. Now I walk into a building and say I’m gonna blow it up, pretty much a guarantee I’m going to jail… speech is still limited, if you like it or not.
Basically this all goes back to Wil Wheaton’s golden rule of… “Don’t be a dick”
My biggest issue is the hypocrisy I’m seeing. The pitchfork mob seems to guide the decision making process.
Hate speech and vitriol are apparently fine depending on the target of the same?
Apologies, “personal growth”, and repentance are immediately accepted versus wholly and immediately rejected depending on the “sides” of the situation?
Don’t be a dick…but if someone is a dick…be consistent with how you handle it.
That’s what I’m looking for.
2 Likes
To much dick handling can lead to blindness and hairy palms. Or so my mom says.
The calculus being employed here is simple. Are there more fans of Gina Carano who will buy or continue to subscribe to Disney+ in support of her or more fans who are likely to ditch the series and the service because of her.
Disney wants to post quarter-by-quarter earnings for their shareholders and their actions will be predicated on achieving that result. It is literally the law that a corporation’s primary measure for its duty to its shareholders is producing quarterly and annual returns.
So, they have absolutely no upside for taking a stance one way or the other in regard to any actor’s individual beliefs. The best they can hope to do is what they did here, quietly dismiss her from employment and release a fairly middle of the road statement regarding her employment status and inclusivity.
It was either that or turn a deaf mouse ear to it and hope she tamp down her rhetoric so fans would stop complaining to Disney about it. They already tried this for a while. Yes, there are fans that support her and her viewpoints, but they will only complain about her dismissal once and for a short period of time. She was going to keep whipping up the other fans every time she wiggled her fingers along her iphone and Disney was going to have to keep hearing about it.
3 Likes
The origin of that old wives’ tale is pretty interesting.
1 Like
Can you explain Harry Palms of Cheech & Chong then?! JK.
My wife worked on an ABC show. One of the primary reasons they do this (let actors go in these types of cases) is it’s less headache for them for anything controversial that is being said by a person they’ve hired that sort of does “represent” their company in some fashion.
It basically relinquishes the company of any PR followup… Now they can go, “We wish them the best, we’re moving forward now, no longer a problem of ours, no comment” when asked about it because we also live in a world where people (media) want to drag up things others have said to stir the pot.
4 Likes
Great point! Spot on
What if it was a major character, and not a B character? Say… Elizabeth Olsen or a Robert Downey Jr? Would they let them go and abandon all they have invested? Opinions only matter who you are.
Now I am triggered. All Wookies must die…
Wookiees are particularly immune to hate speech. We can rip the arms off a gundark.
1 Like