Which is worse? Which should be cancelled?

Question

This Tweet by Gina Carano

Which is worse? Which should be cancelled?

This Tweet by Pedro Pascal

Now, I don't support "Cancel Culture" but let us be honest here? There is a clear double standard. Only one of these people lose their jobs.
Also, this was not the only tweet by Pedro Pascal I could have posted. He, along with many others made numerous comparisons of Republicans, Conservatives, Trump Supporters etc to Nazis, Slavers, Fascists. ETC
Gina also put out tweets relating to pronouns in her Bio, where she was harassed for several months to list them (while she had no interest in post Pronouns). This led to her commenting to others in a way they claimed to be Transphobic. I believe she said something along the lines of be Beep/Boop/Beep.

However, it was this particular tweet that was the "last straw" for Disney/Lucasfilm. They removed her without notifying her (She learned through Social Media she had been let go).

Honestly people? Which one of these is worse?
Who deserves to be cancelled?

Answer 1

Nalix | 337 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Xper 6

Cancel culture will inevitably turn on itself. The mob is real. There are bullies everywhere on the political spectrum, but Leftist bullies have a lot more power right now, and have had it for decades now. The absolute insane levels of hate coming from the left is scary right now. And has been pretty scary for the last two decades. Are they going to start putting conservatives into re-education camps? No, but they may find a smaller group and work out from there. The trend is certainly in that direction.

Gina is right that people are being demonized for their beliefs, and these are not even bad beliefs. I have friends on the left who wouldn't shed a tear for me if the mob told them that my "disposal" was necessary. These are people who like me, I think. But I've seen how easily they are swayed by the mob, and it is truly scary.

This interview should prove enlightening:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxObG659Sc0

React

Answer 2

ADFSDF1996 | 2.1K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Influencer

Gina Carano’s tweet was more factual and more intelligent. She used her own words to describe a pattern in society by using historical references.

Pedro Pascal’s tweet was nothing more than typical leftist “edgyness” and distortion of fact. He blatantly compared republicans to Nazis when many republicans fought the Nazis in WWII. Not to mention that many American Jews are Republicans.

But even then I don’t think either deserves to be canceled although the latter (pascal’s tweet) is clearly the more distasteful one.

React

1 Person

Hydra6544

1 y
And funny enough the confederates were democrats because the parties switched in the 80s I think.
HouseAtreides

1 y
@Hydra6544 ^ true
the switch started during the 60s when the Democrats started to champion the Civil Rights movement
Hydra6544

1 y
I think you mean the republicans because most democrats were in the south.
Show All Show Less
ChefPapiChulo

1 y
There’s nothing factual about what she said. It was all opinionated nonsense.
ADFSDF1996

1 y
@ChefPapiChulo
There is nothing “opinionated” about pointing out an obvious pattern.
ChefPapiChulo

1 y
That’s a fallacy.
ADFSDF1996

1 y
@ChefPapiChulo
Nope but what is a fallacy is when leftists constantly resort to reductio ad Hitlerum whenever someone disagrees with them.
ChefPapiChulo

1 y
What you said is also nonsense.
ADFSDF1996

1 y
@ChefPapiChulo Nope, just stating the obvious. Not my fault you don’t have any valid counter arguments
ChefPapiChulo

1 y
There’s no counter to an ad hominem. Ad hominem counter themselves because they’re a fallacy.
ADFSDF1996

1 y
@ChefPapiChulo
Clearly you don’t even know what an ad hominem is.
ChefPapiChulo

1 y
“ Nope but what is a fallacy is when leftists constantly resort to reductio ad Hitlerum”

Your trolling game is weak.
ADFSDF1996

1 y
@ChefPapiChulo
Pointing out the obvious isn’t a fallacy.
ChefPapiChulo

1 y
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
ADFSDF1996

1 y
@ChefPapiChulo

That would only be true if I were only speculating which I’m not. It’s actually very common for leftists to pull the Nazi card. Not saying you pulled the Nazi card.
ChefPapiChulo

1 y
This was the fallacy I originally replied to

“ There is nothing ‘opinionated’ about pointing out an obvious pattern.”

You’re saying it’s obvious. So what she said is be true.

Also you accused leftist of using reductio ad absurdum (the nazi card) while using it yourself.

I hope you’re trolling.
ADFSDF1996

1 y
@ChefPapiChulo

You called it an add hominem which it isn’t.

And what she said is very accurate.

Because leftists constantly resort to reductio ad Hitlerum. And I never called anyone a Nazi.

If anyone is trolling it’s you.
ChefPapiChulo

1 y
I’ve already explained to you how your statements are fallacies. I can’t think for you, you have to come up with your own logical conclusions.
ADFSDF1996

1 y
@ChefPapiChulo

You haven’t explained anything. All you’ve been spouting off is “just because”
www.logicallyfallacious.com/.../Just-Because-Fallacy
ChefPapiChulo

1 y
“ There is nothing ‘opinionated’ about pointing out an obvious pattern.”

You’re saying it’s obvious. So what she said is be true.

I’ve given you links to the ad hominem you’ve used.
ADFSDF1996

1 y
@ChefPapiChulo
An ad hominem is an insult. Yet here you are saying it means fallacy in general when an ad hominem is only one type of fallacy.

Clearly you don’t even know what you are talking about.
ChefPapiChulo

1 y
I’m sorry but that’s completely wrong. Ad hominem is an argumentative fallacy.
ADFSDF1996

1 y
@ChefPapiChulo
It’s when you insult your opponent instead of trying to provide counter arguments to their argument.
ChefPapiChulo

1 y
You mean a straw man? You’ve used that several times. I’ve given you the tools to educate yourself. Do with them as you wish.
ADFSDF1996

1 y
@ChefPapiChulo

Last I checked I’m not the one who seems to have trouble differentiating fallacies.
ChefPapiChulo

1 y
yes, you are.
ADFSDF1996

1 y
@ChefPapiChulo

Yet again you prove my point.
ChefPapiChulo

1 y
I've given you links so you can learn what an ad hominem is.
ADFSDF1996

1 y
@ChefPapiChulo

An Argument of incredulity isn’t an ad hominem. They are two different fallacies.
ChefPapiChulo

1 y

Ad hominem, short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue. The most common form of this fallacy is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong".

I'm literally spoon feeding you information.
ADFSDF1996

1 y
@ChefPapiChulo

For starters it’s irrelevant cause I never insulted you, and second of all you linked a completely different fallacy.
ChefPapiChulo

1 y
You've had many different fallacies on this opinion.
ADFSDF1996

1 y
@ChefPapiChulo

Typical pseudo-intellectualism. Not everything you disagree with is a “fallacy”.

Answer 3

Hydra6544

And funny enough the confederates were democrats because the parties switched in the 80s I think.

Answer 4

HouseAtreides

@Hydra6544 ^ true
the switch started during the 60s when the Democrats started to champion the Civil Rights movement

Answer 5

Hydra6544

I think you mean the republicans because most democrats were in the south.

Answer 6

ChefPapiChulo

There’s nothing factual about what she said. It was all opinionated nonsense.

Answer 7

ADFSDF1996

@ChefPapiChulo
There is nothing “opinionated” about pointing out an obvious pattern.

Answer 8

ChefPapiChulo

That’s a fallacy.

Answer 9

ADFSDF1996

@ChefPapiChulo
Nope but what is a fallacy is when leftists constantly resort to reductio ad Hitlerum whenever someone disagrees with them.

Answer 10

ChefPapiChulo

What you said is also nonsense.

Answer 11

ADFSDF1996

@ChefPapiChulo Nope, just stating the obvious. Not my fault you don’t have any valid counter arguments

Answer 12

ChefPapiChulo

There’s no counter to an ad hominem. Ad hominem counter themselves because they’re a fallacy.

Answer 13

ADFSDF1996

@ChefPapiChulo
Clearly you don’t even know what an ad hominem is.

Answer 14

ChefPapiChulo

“ Nope but what is a fallacy is when leftists constantly resort to reductio ad Hitlerum”

Your trolling game is weak.

Answer 15

ADFSDF1996

@ChefPapiChulo
Pointing out the obvious isn’t a fallacy.

Answer 16

ChefPapiChulo

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

Answer 17

ADFSDF1996

@ChefPapiChulo

That would only be true if I were only speculating which I’m not. It’s actually very common for leftists to pull the Nazi card. Not saying you pulled the Nazi card.

Answer 18

ChefPapiChulo

This was the fallacy I originally replied to

“ There is nothing ‘opinionated’ about pointing out an obvious pattern.”

You’re saying it’s obvious. So what she said is be true.

Also you accused leftist of using reductio ad absurdum (the nazi card) while using it yourself.

I hope you’re trolling.

Answer 19

ADFSDF1996

@ChefPapiChulo

You called it an add hominem which it isn’t.

And what she said is very accurate.

Because leftists constantly resort to reductio ad Hitlerum. And I never called anyone a Nazi.

If anyone is trolling it’s you.

Answer 20

ChefPapiChulo

I’ve already explained to you how your statements are fallacies. I can’t think for you, you have to come up with your own logical conclusions.

Answer 21

ADFSDF1996

@ChefPapiChulo

You haven’t explained anything. All you’ve been spouting off is “just because”
www.logicallyfallacious.com/.../Just-Because-Fallacy

Answer 22

ChefPapiChulo

“ There is nothing ‘opinionated’ about pointing out an obvious pattern.”

You’re saying it’s obvious. So what she said is be true.

I’ve given you links to the ad hominem you’ve used.

Answer 23

ADFSDF1996

@ChefPapiChulo
An ad hominem is an insult. Yet here you are saying it means fallacy in general when an ad hominem is only one type of fallacy.

Clearly you don’t even know what you are talking about.

Answer 24

ChefPapiChulo

I’m sorry but that’s completely wrong. Ad hominem is an argumentative fallacy.

Answer 25

ADFSDF1996

@ChefPapiChulo
It’s when you insult your opponent instead of trying to provide counter arguments to their argument.

Answer 26

ChefPapiChulo

You mean a straw man? You’ve used that several times. I’ve given you the tools to educate yourself. Do with them as you wish.

Answer 27

ADFSDF1996

@ChefPapiChulo

Last I checked I’m not the one who seems to have trouble differentiating fallacies.

Answer 28

ChefPapiChulo

yes, you are.

Answer 29

ADFSDF1996

@ChefPapiChulo

Yet again you prove my point.

Answer 30

ChefPapiChulo

I've given you links so you can learn what an ad hominem is.

Answer 31

ADFSDF1996

@ChefPapiChulo

An Argument of incredulity isn’t an ad hominem. They are two different fallacies.

Answer 32

ChefPapiChulo

Ad hominem, short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue. The most common form of this fallacy is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong".

I'm literally spoon feeding you information.

Answer 33

ADFSDF1996

@ChefPapiChulo

For starters it’s irrelevant cause I never insulted you, and second of all you linked a completely different fallacy.

Answer 34

ChefPapiChulo

You've had many different fallacies on this opinion.

Answer 35

ADFSDF1996

@ChefPapiChulo

Typical pseudo-intellectualism. Not everything you disagree with is a “fallacy”.

Answer 36

jennifer_bloom | 2.4K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Master

Well the problem with trump support is that trump endorses racism and religious discrimination which is never acceptable by any civilized group. If Joe Biden was mentally retarded I would choose him over a racist because America is founded on Christ like values - values that include religious co existence and racial inclusivity.

React

4 People

HouseAtreides

1 y
So you would assume all Trump supporters are racist?
Or value Trump simply due to his Racism?

In my experience
most Trump supporters (or those who voted for him)
don't actually like the man
They simply view him as a lesser of 2 evils
jennifer_bloom

1 y
I believe you cannot accept bribes and choosing a racist president who offers to lower your taxes is the same thing as accepting a bribe. No different from a judge who lets a guilty man go free cause the judge was given money by the guilty man's family.
HouseAtreides

1 y
So you are saying when people vote for a President
they take every issue into account?
doubtful.

People are typically 1 or 2 issue voters
Show All Show Less
jennifer_bloom

1 y
And I believe that voting for a racist is unacceptable under all situations.
HouseAtreides

1 y
So then I would say its unlikely you would have voted for Biden
after all
his racially based Policies that Kamala Harris brought up during the debates?

That is the past though I suppose
and it only matters in certain circumstances.. when it involves certain people
HouseAtreides

1 y
And ill be HONEST
being a Bernie Sanders supporter myself

Much of the "Racism" associated with Trump tends to be exaggerated
INDEED he has said plenty of really stupid things
and... I consider him one of the worst (if not the worst) Presidents in the history of the USA

But much of it was developed off of misinformation
FOR EXAMPLE
His unwillingness to denounce White Supremacist groups
and his famous "very fine people" quote
^ in that very same interview.. only moments before
he denounced those organizations
jennifer_bloom

1 y
A racist man belongs in jail - not in the white house.
HouseAtreides

1 y
So then
according to Kamala Harris...
^ though of course they are cool now (sooo.. did she lie? Or was she telling the truth? .. hmm)

Should we put Biden in jail?
jennifer_bloom

1 y
Trump is a thousand times if not 80000 times more racist and race baiting than Joe Biden - it isn't about principle traits but about quantity and degree.
HouseAtreides

1 y
To be honest there have been very few cases of things from Trump that have been outright racist. Many of his policies are being currently implemented by the Biden Administration (or were practiced in previous Administrations)
YES INDEED, there were questionable statements made by him
MANY taken out of context.. but several very clearly poor

This is not particularly unique to Biden, who has said similar things on both the campaign trail, and during his time in office.

BUT by the sounds of it
you are not actually pushing an "all or nothing" style standard
EVEN if we assume Trump is so many times worse than Biden
Should then some racists (who also pushed racist policies) be accepted and stay in office
while others go to prison. . because they did "more" (supposedly... honestly MOST cases I've seen were taken out of context.. I only listed you one)
Hydra6544

1 y
I never thought I would see the day where a liberal defend President Trump. also @jennifer_bloom @houseatreides is right not all of his supporters are racists also Joe is in my opinion not going to see the end of this term and I don’t really like Kamila that much because she broke one of my band’s tables and hasn’t replaced it.

Answer 37

HouseAtreides

So you would assume all Trump supporters are racist?
Or value Trump simply due to his Racism?

In my experience
most Trump supporters (or those who voted for him)
don't actually like the man
They simply view him as a lesser of 2 evils

Answer 38

jennifer_bloom

I believe you cannot accept bribes and choosing a racist president who offers to lower your taxes is the same thing as accepting a bribe. No different from a judge who lets a guilty man go free cause the judge was given money by the guilty man's family.

Answer 39

HouseAtreides

So you are saying when people vote for a President
they take every issue into account?
doubtful.

People are typically 1 or 2 issue voters

Answer 40

jennifer_bloom

And I believe that voting for a racist is unacceptable under all situations.

Answer 41

HouseAtreides

So then I would say its unlikely you would have voted for Biden
after all
his racially based Policies that Kamala Harris brought up during the debates?

That is the past though I suppose
and it only matters in certain circumstances.. when it involves certain people

Answer 42

HouseAtreides

And ill be HONEST
being a Bernie Sanders supporter myself

Much of the "Racism" associated with Trump tends to be exaggerated
INDEED he has said plenty of really stupid things
and... I consider him one of the worst (if not the worst) Presidents in the history of the USA

But much of it was developed off of misinformation
FOR EXAMPLE
His unwillingness to denounce White Supremacist groups
and his famous "very fine people" quote
^ in that very same interview.. only moments before
he denounced those organizations

Answer 43

jennifer_bloom

A racist man belongs in jail - not in the white house.

Answer 44

HouseAtreides

So then
according to Kamala Harris...
^ though of course they are cool now (sooo.. did she lie? Or was she telling the truth? .. hmm)

Should we put Biden in jail?

Answer 45

jennifer_bloom

Trump is a thousand times if not 80000 times more racist and race baiting than Joe Biden - it isn't about principle traits but about quantity and degree.

Answer 46

HouseAtreides

To be honest there have been very few cases of things from Trump that have been outright racist. Many of his policies are being currently implemented by the Biden Administration (or were practiced in previous Administrations)
YES INDEED, there were questionable statements made by him
MANY taken out of context.. but several very clearly poor

This is not particularly unique to Biden, who has said similar things on both the campaign trail, and during his time in office.

BUT by the sounds of it
you are not actually pushing an "all or nothing" style standard
EVEN if we assume Trump is so many times worse than Biden
Should then some racists (who also pushed racist policies) be accepted and stay in office
while others go to prison. . because they did "more" (supposedly... honestly MOST cases I've seen were taken out of context.. I only listed you one)

Answer 47

Hydra6544

I never thought I would see the day where a liberal defend President Trump. also @jennifer_bloom @houseatreides is right not all of his supporters are racists also Joe is in my opinion not going to see the end of this term and I don’t really like Kamila that much because she broke one of my band’s tables and hasn’t replaced it.

Answer 48

hellionthesagereborn | 3.7K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Guru

No one deserves to be canceled but when you live in a world where the woman who says "don't demonize your neighbors" because it will lead to ever greater travesties and injustices is fired for "hateful speech" an the guy who says those who don't align with him 100% are all inhuman racists and evil gets no negative consquences, you know your living in a a fucked up world.

Clown world, where up is down and down is up and we are all suppose to just go along with it even as these people destroy every vestige of our society and companies like disney, nike, facebook, an twitter all tell us how moral they are and how evil and tyranical the US is while selling us out to china who has LITERAL FUCKING CONCENTRATION CAMPS AND HAS COMMITED MULTIPLE GENOCIDE AND IS HARVESTING POLITICAL DISSIDENTS ORGANS TO SELL IN THEIR MEDICAL TOURISM INDUSTRY.

To use the colloquial terminology, " shits fucked up.".

React

Answer 49

DCooper | 997 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Yoda

Pascal would be a hell of a lot easier to replace. They could make the rest of the series without even needing to show his face, lol.

And before someone brings up that failed quarterback with the Polish name, consider that Carano was canned for opinions she put on her personal social media; not for voicing her personal opinions (that have nothing to do with Star Wars) in place of reciting her lines, or at a public convention in character or anything that would be considered on company time.

React

Answer 50

Avicenna | 4.2K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Master

While I don't think in either of these particular cases someone should be fired over it, the difference is that Pascal was merely parroting a leftist talking point that has the full approval of leftists elites to be parroted. Leftists want free rein to engage in corruption, violence and other illegal behavior, and if they can keep anyone from saying anything about it and exposing it to others, they will be able to do those things with even less accountability then they now have (which isn't much since the chances of them being investigated, much less prosecuted and even less to suffer any real consequences, are very low). That's the real reason behind cancelling people.

React

Answer 51

jshm2 | 6.8K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Master

Gina Canaro, of course, you dunce.

She was stupid enough to equate a bit of Republican hurt feelings with Nazi brutality.

Pedro is right in his suggestion the three of them were right wing nutters, and rightly lost as a result.

React

5 People

HouseAtreides

1 y
I think you totally missed the point of the Gina post
It did not equate the treatment of Republicans with Nazi Brutality (the Holocaust for example)
it gave warnings of how the generalizations of large groups of people (and the normalcy of such actions) can lead to atrocities.

At this point in time
as we know
and you have proven
Republicans are akin to Nazis
along with all of their supporters

Answer 52

HouseAtreides

I think you totally missed the point of the Gina post
It did not equate the treatment of Republicans with Nazi Brutality (the Holocaust for example)
it gave warnings of how the generalizations of large groups of people (and the normalcy of such actions) can lead to atrocities.

At this point in time
as we know
and you have proven
Republicans are akin to Nazis
along with all of their supporters

Answer 53

Sargentcaptain | 1.2K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Explorer

Both are dumb and exaggerating, but neither should be losing their jobs over it. Quite frankly, the Mandalorian is a shitty show I don't care about, but the actors are not the reason for me being disinterested in the show.

React

Answer 54

pajamasam

Yoda

One is true, and one is a gross over simplicstion for the sake of whining.

Now can you tell me which is which?

React

Answer 55

Hydra6544 | 177 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Xper 4

No one deserves to be canceled no matter what they think.

React

Answer 56

ChefPapiChulo | 1.1K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Yoda

Neither. But she’s by far the dumber one in all of this. Hers is objectively worse.

React

Answer 57

Snakeyes7 | 4.6K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Guru

Neither but if one clearly had to be it would make more sense to remove Pascal.

React

Answer 58

Anonymous

The one where the racists far-right-wing crazies try to pretend they are victims, like the Jews.

The other one just points out that historically, nazi right-wing racist groups lose.

React

1 Person

Hydra6544

1 y
The confederates were not republicans they were southern democrats or Dixiecrats
Opinion Owner

1 y
@Hydra6544 They were racists. They were crazies. And in todays modern era, they are the Republicans.
Hydra6544

1 y
They weren’t crazy it was their way of life and the only thing they knew.

Answer 59

Hydra6544

The confederates were not republicans they were southern democrats or Dixiecrats

Answer 60

Opinion Owner

@Hydra6544 They were racists. They were crazies. And in todays modern era, they are the Republicans.

Answer 61

Hydra6544

They weren’t crazy it was their way of life and the only thing they knew.

Answer 62

OddBeMe | 13.7K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Master

Ehh, neither are particularly bad.

React

HouseAtreides

1 y
^ id agree with that
OddBeMe

1 y
But if you work for GM and then tweet how bad GM is, could you be fired?
HouseAtreides

1 y
I think it really depends on the company
but yes of course that is a possibility.

The issue here wasn't of them tweeting about how bad their company was
it was more about their own political views (or discussions about society as a whole).
Show All Show Less
OddBeMe

1 y
She tweeted how bad California was. Last I checked, Hollywood was there. Again, I wouldn’t have fired her. But she was an idiot for posting that.
HouseAtreides

1 y
There is a difference between saying
"I don't live California"
and "Disney/Lucasfilm sucks"
while being employed by the company

It would be like me working for the Chicago school district
and I said I disagreed with Chicago politics
and the school district fired me

NOW if I said something along the lines of "This school district is terrible"
depending on contract MAYBE! its an offense that can result in release (though I still doubt it)

but those are 2 different things
OddBeMe

1 y
Yeah, it would be like that. And if teachers didn’t have unions they’d be stupid to tweet that. As Gina was.
HouseAtreides

1 y
They fired her because of her political views
they dont mesh with Hollywood

sounds more like discrimination
OddBeMe

1 y
Contracts have clauses that allow companies to fire you if they’re embarrassed. She knew the risks.
HouseAtreides

1 y
Yet you also can't show prejudice on the basis of race.. religions.. sexuality
and as far as I know
politics?
HouseAtreides

1 y
^ actually a bit of research (from me)
states California law protects from discrimination against political beliefs
Labor Code 1101 and/or 1102
OddBeMe

1 y
She may have a case. But again, contracts are different than full employment. And her politics didn’t get her fired. Relating Californians to Nazis did.
HouseAtreides

1 y
I dont think she related californians to nazis
she spoke about the discrimination of people on the basis of political beliefs

even the comparison to "nazis"
is not really a true one
that tweet doesn't actually do that
OddBeMe

1 y
The tweet was responding to a thread or it had a pic caption of Californians apparently. Not sure which. But it’s obvious

Answer 63

HouseAtreides

^ id agree with that

Answer 64

OddBeMe

But if you work for GM and then tweet how bad GM is, could you be fired?

Answer 65

HouseAtreides

I think it really depends on the company
but yes of course that is a possibility.

The issue here wasn't of them tweeting about how bad their company was
it was more about their own political views (or discussions about society as a whole).

Answer 66

OddBeMe

She tweeted how bad California was. Last I checked, Hollywood was there. Again, I wouldn’t have fired her. But she was an idiot for posting that.

Answer 67

HouseAtreides

There is a difference between saying
"I don't live California"
and "Disney/Lucasfilm sucks"
while being employed by the company

It would be like me working for the Chicago school district
and I said I disagreed with Chicago politics
and the school district fired me

NOW if I said something along the lines of "This school district is terrible"
depending on contract MAYBE! its an offense that can result in release (though I still doubt it)

but those are 2 different things

Answer 68

OddBeMe

Yeah, it would be like that. And if teachers didn’t have unions they’d be stupid to tweet that. As Gina was.

Answer 69

HouseAtreides

They fired her because of her political views
they dont mesh with Hollywood

sounds more like discrimination

Answer 70

OddBeMe

Contracts have clauses that allow companies to fire you if they’re embarrassed. She knew the risks.

Answer 71

HouseAtreides

Yet you also can't show prejudice on the basis of race.. religions.. sexuality
and as far as I know
politics?

Answer 72

HouseAtreides

^ actually a bit of research (from me)
states California law protects from discrimination against political beliefs
Labor Code 1101 and/or 1102

Answer 73

OddBeMe

She may have a case. But again, contracts are different than full employment. And her politics didn’t get her fired. Relating Californians to Nazis did.

Answer 74

HouseAtreides

I dont think she related californians to nazis
she spoke about the discrimination of people on the basis of political beliefs

even the comparison to "nazis"
is not really a true one
that tweet doesn't actually do that

Answer 75

OddBeMe

The tweet was responding to a thread or it had a pic caption of Californians apparently. Not sure which. But it’s obvious

Answer 76

Rickinct7

Xper 3

i won't watch Madolorian anymore

React

Answer 77

Anonymous

Pedro Pascal deserves to be cancelled

React

Answer 78

CuriousMufuxka | 1.8K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Guru

Twitter.

React

Which is worse? Which should be cancelled?

AI Bot Choice

Most Helpful Guy

Most Helpful Girl

Related Questions

What Girls & Guys Said

Related myTakes