Politics

[DColeKC]

The standard that is applied equally across the board is: the company you work for will fire you if, in their own judgment, your behavior could negatively impact their business. I don't know who Pedro Pascal is (from a cursory Google search, I guess he's the dude who got his head crushed on Game of Thrones? or maybe I should say he's a dude who got his head crushed on Game of Thrones) or what he posted or what company didn't fire him from whatever show or movie he was working on at the time, but clearly some factor or combination of factors here was different, including, possibly, just that the company was not worried about how this reflected on them the way Disney worried about how Gina Carano's tweets reflected on her. His posts were, in your opinion, "far worse," but your opinion doesn't matter, my opinion doesn't matter, only the opinions of those in the C-suite matter, which is exactly the world Republicans have worked tirelessly to build for decades. So I guess my question is, why is this the one thing where the right suddenly wants to second guess the judgment of private enterprise? I mean, obviously I know the answer already, but I'll pose the question anyway.

Once again, no one is questioning a private enterprise for firing someone for whatever reason (legally) they want. It’s about fair treatment of similar or equal offenses.

[droopy]

I don't think there is much argument against her employer firing her or having that right. I just wonder why it's not applied equally across the board. What Pascal posted was far worse IMO. I don't think either one of them did anything offensive enough to deserve firing, but I'm not running a huge company that bends down to public pressure. That's all it takes these days is for some person online

That’s the thing. In the big picture, it doesn’t matter what you think. The company chose to act on Gina Carano and not Pedro Pascal. That’s their choice as a private company. They can justify it publicly however they choose or be silent on it.

As others have stated (in a variety of ways) that’s corporate life, within the law and just plain old capitalism if they feel they make more money without her PR baggage than with it.

More broadly, I don’t understand the “cancel culture” talking point. Companies and people will or won’t “cancel” things based on their value to them. To me it seems the ones talking about the damage of “cancel culture” are the ones also supporting free markets, corporate tax breaks and trickle down economics. They seem at odds to me. You should be supporting Disney in exercising their corporate free will of acting as they see most beneficial to their brand and almighty bottom line. If you disagree with firing Carano and not Pascal don’t spend your money on Disney products. It’s simple. But don’t belly ache about this versus that and why doesn’t everyone like the things I say or do.

[DColeKC]

I don't think there is much argument against her employer firing her or having that right. I just wonder why it's not applied equally across the board. What Pascal posted was far worse IMO. I don't think either one of them did anything offensive enough to deserve firing, but I'm not running a huge company that bends down to public pressure. That's all it takes these days is for some person online

That’s the thing. In the big picture, it doesn’t matter what you think. The company chose to act on Gina Carano and not Pedro Pascal. That’s their choice as a private company. They can justify it publicly however they choose or be silent on it.

As others have stated (in a variety of ways) that’s corporate life, within the law and just plain old capitalism if they feel they make more money without her PR baggage than with it.

More broadly, I don’t understand the “cancel culture” talking point. Companies and people will or won’t “cancel” things based on their value to them. To me it seems the ones talking about the damage of “cancel culture” are the ones also supporting free markets, corporate tax breaks and trickle down economics. They seem at odds to me. You should be supporting Disney in exercising their corporate free will of acting as they see most beneficial to their brand and almighty bottom line. If you disagree with firing Carano and not Pascal don’t spend your money on Disney products. It’s simple. But don’t belly ache about this versus that and why doesn’t everyone like the things I say or do.

I don't support cancel culture and sorry, someone or some company has to do something fairly insane for me to "boycott" them. Folks that lean right don't tend to be big boycott types, which is probably why companies like Disney are more likely to fire someone who says right supporting things while allowing left leaning or anti-conservative comments.

Last time here, I have zero issues with any company doing what's best for their company. I do find the blatant double standard annoying, but still, that doesn't mean I disagree with Disney's ability to do what they did. I may just disagree with the actual execution of the firing and honestly, they wouldn't have been that impacted by keeping her.

[FangKC]

I don't know if what you are saying is true. I've seen right-leaning religious groups boycott. I've seen Million Moms threaten boycotts.

Franklin Graham urges Christians to boycott gay-friendly companies

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-wor ... companies/

One Million Moms calls to boycott Hallmark

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/one ... 01451.html

Southern Baptists vote for Disney boycott

http://www.cnn.com/US/9706/18/baptists.disney/

President Trump often called for boycotts: CNN, Goodyear Tires, Apples Computers, Harley-Davidson Motorcycles, Megyn Kelly's FOX News show, Macy's, Univision, Rolling Stone, HBO, Glenfiddich Scotch, Oreos, Mexico, and Italy.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-long- ... e-products

[phuqueue]

The standard that is applied equally across the board is: the company you work for will fire you if, in their own judgment, your behavior could negatively impact their business. I don't know who Pedro Pascal is (from a cursory Google search, I guess he's the dude who got his head crushed on Game of Thrones? or maybe I should say he's a dude who got his head crushed on Game of Thrones) or what he posted or what company didn't fire him from whatever show or movie he was working on at the time, but clearly some factor or combination of factors here was different, including, possibly, just that the company was not worried about how this reflected on them the way Disney worried about how Gina Carano's tweets reflected on her. His posts were, in your opinion, "far worse," but your opinion doesn't matter, my opinion doesn't matter, only the opinions of those in the C-suite matter, which is exactly the world Republicans have worked tirelessly to build for decades. So I guess my question is, why is this the one thing where the right suddenly wants to second guess the judgment of private enterprise? I mean, obviously I know the answer already, but I'll pose the question anyway.

Once again, no one is questioning a private enterprise for firing someone for whatever reason (legally) they want. It’s about fair treatment of similar or equal offenses.

You are actually explicitly questioning a private enterprise for firing someone (more specifically, for firing one person but not firing someone else). This whole thing is you questioning that.

I don't support cancel culture and sorry, someone or some company has to do something fairly insane for me to "boycott" them. Folks that lean right don't tend to be big boycott types, which is probably why companies like Disney are more likely to fire someone who says right supporting things while allowing left leaning or anti-conservative comments.

Last time here, I have zero issues with any company doing what's best for their company. I do find the blatant double standard annoying, but still, that doesn't mean I disagree with Disney's ability to do what they did. I may just disagree with the actual execution of the firing and honestly, they wouldn't have been that impacted by keeping her.

Well, if the worst thing a giant corporation only interested in maximizing its own profits ever does to you is annoy you by firing an actress without first seeking your input about whether that would be "fair," consider yourself lucky.

[DColeKC]

I don't know if what you are saying is true. I've seen right-leaning religious groups boycott. I've seen Million Moms threaten boycotts.

Franklin Graham urges Christians to boycott gay-friendly companies

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-wor ... companies/

One Million Moms calls to boycott Hallmark

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/one ... 01451.html

Southern Baptists vote for Disney boycott

http://www.cnn.com/US/9706/18/baptists.disney/

President Trump often called for boycotts: CNN, Goodyear Tires, Apples Computers, Harley-Davidson Motorcycles, Megyn Kelly's FOX News show, Macy's, Univision, Rolling Stone, HBO, Glenfiddich Scotch, Oreos, Mexico, and Italy.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-long- ... e-products

I’m not saying some conservatives don’t call for boycotts or canceling something. I’m just saying for the most part, they’re ineffective because most people don’t give a shit enough to not buy what they want to buy.

[DColeKC]

The standard that is applied equally across the board is: the company you work for will fire you if, in their own judgment, your behavior could negatively impact their business. I don't know who Pedro Pascal is (from a cursory Google search, I guess he's the dude who got his head crushed on Game of Thrones? or maybe I should say he's a dude who got his head crushed on Game of Thrones) or what he posted or what company didn't fire him from whatever show or movie he was working on at the time, but clearly some factor or combination of factors here was different, including, possibly, just that the company was not worried about how this reflected on them the way Disney worried about how Gina Carano's tweets reflected on her. His posts were, in your opinion, "far worse," but your opinion doesn't matter, my opinion doesn't matter, only the opinions of those in the C-suite matter, which is exactly the world Republicans have worked tirelessly to build for decades. So I guess my question is, why is this the one thing where the right suddenly wants to second guess the judgment of private enterprise? I mean, obviously I know the answer already, but I'll pose the question anyway.

Once again, no one is questioning a private enterprise for firing someone for whatever reason (legally) they want. It’s about fair treatment of similar or equal offenses.

You are actually explicitly questioning a private enterprise for firing someone (more specifically, for firing one person but not firing someone else). This whole thing is you questioning that.

I don't support cancel culture and sorry, someone or some company has to do something fairly insane for me to "boycott" them. Folks that lean right don't tend to be big boycott types, which is probably why companies like Disney are more likely to fire someone who says right supporting things while allowing left leaning or anti-conservative comments.

Last time here, I have zero issues with any company doing what's best for their company. I do find the blatant double standard annoying, but still, that doesn't mean I disagree with Disney's ability to do what they did. I may just disagree with the actual execution of the firing and honestly, they wouldn't have been that impacted by keeping her.

Well, if the worst thing a giant corporation only interested in maximizing its own profits ever does to you is annoy you by firing an actress without first seeking your input about whether that would be "fair," consider yourself lucky.

I’m only pointing out the double standard for arguments sake. I’m not asking laws to be changed or protecting political speech.

Everyone wants to talk about if they had the right to do what they did when no one is questioning that. I’m more interested if anyone thinks the two tweets are equally bad?

[earthling]

There is no double standard if Disney agrees that Trumpism enables various forms of supremacy.

Have been roaming Southeast states lately and many are proud to tie Trump to Confederate flag and white supremacy to a lesser degree but does exist. I've seen bumper stickers with confederate flag, Trump and horribly sometimes an image of demeaning caricature silhouette with afro, large lips and a red circle with strike through it. Many people are openly supremacists down here (white supremacy, nationalistic supremacy and/or Christian supremacy). Trumpism empowers it further. There hasn't been a movement in decades that has as much as Trumpism. Supremacy is now normalized into modern politics as a valid form of society to target.

[phuqueue]

I mean, for the nth time, it's not a "double standard," you are just not acknowledging what the actual standard is. Anyway, I'm not interested in whether the two tweets are "equally bad" because one person's opinion about how offensive or not a tweet is doesn't matter and can barely even be called "politics," even if the tweet itself was technically political in nature. I am interested in the inherent contradiction in conservatives ceding control over our society to corporations and championing corporate rights to do, basically, whatever they want, and then crying foul when a corporation exercises that power in a way that offends conservative sensibilities. I think that is intensely political. I think debates about how offensive a tweet is are frivolous.

[DColeKC]

I mean, for the nth time, it's not a "double standard," you are just not acknowledging what the actual standard is. Anyway, I'm not interested in whether the two tweets are "equally bad" because one person's opinion about how offensive or not a tweet is doesn't matter and can barely even be called "politics," even if the tweet itself was technically political in nature. I am interested in the inherent contradiction in conservatives ceding control over our society to corporations and championing corporate rights to do, basically, whatever they want, and then crying foul when a corporation exercises that power in a way that offends conservative sensibilities. I think that is intensely political. I think debates about how offensive a tweet is are frivolous.

Ok, unequal responses for similar actions based on what that persons supporting or putting down.

We aren’t going to change the world in here so I’m more interested in people’s opinions about the tweets. I also haven’t seen much outrage from conservatives about her being fired.

[DColeKC]

There is no double standard if Disney agrees that Trumpism enables various forms of supremacy.

Have been roaming Southeast states lately and many are proud to tie Trump to Confederate flag and white supremacy to a lesser degree but does exist. I've seen bumper stickers with confederate flag, Trump and horribly sometimes an image of demeaning caricature silhouette with afro, large lips and a red circle with strike through it. Many people are openly supremacists down here (white supremacy, nationalistic supremacy and/or Christian supremacy). Trumpism empowers it further. There hasn't been a movement in decades that has as much as Trumpism. Supremacy is now normalized into modern politics as a valid form of society to target.

I’ve spent a lot of time down south and it’s a different world. Why they hold onto a flag of the losing side I’ll never understand.

Anyway, I think the portion of Trump supporters that are radical or racist is small. I wish they didn’t exist at all, but I refuse to believe that 75 million Americans are racist homophobic bible thumpers.

[earthling]

^Point being that there are factions proud with tying the 3 together (Confederacy, Nazi like supremacy and Trump), it's become a movement that's still alive. You're 'well not everybody is an extremist so those who callout Trumpism is a double standard' response is exactly how it becomes more empowered, through 3rd degree indirect support for supremecy. Those who voted for him again 2nd time were essentially considering it acceptable to allow supremacy to rise indirectly in order to get what they want.

Is unlikely this would have gotten to this level with most any relatively more level headed GOP leader at the helm.

[phuqueue]

I mean, for the nth time, it's not a "double standard," you are just not acknowledging what the actual standard is. Anyway, I'm not interested in whether the two tweets are "equally bad" because one person's opinion about how offensive or not a tweet is doesn't matter and can barely even be called "politics," even if the tweet itself was technically political in nature. I am interested in the inherent contradiction in conservatives ceding control over our society to corporations and championing corporate rights to do, basically, whatever they want, and then crying foul when a corporation exercises that power in a way that offends conservative sensibilities. I think that is intensely political. I think debates about how offensive a tweet is are frivolous.

Ok, unequal responses for similar actions based on what that persons supporting or putting down.

We aren’t going to change the world in here so I’m more interested in people’s opinions about the tweets. I also haven’t seen much outrage from conservatives about her being fired.

It's not about "changing the world," it's just about talking about things that matter instead of things that don't. Some topics are more significant than others, even if the fact of our talking about them on a message board on the internet doesn't really matter. You have this singleminded focus on the tweets but have so far proven extremely resistant to interrogating exactly why you feel compelled to rush to the defense of some rich celebrity who lost a job she didn't even need. That, to me, is a lot more interesting (and more meaningful) than whose tweet was worse. It doesn't seem like you are getting any closer to considering or talking about why you care so much about poor Gina Carano, so maybe it is time for this line of discussion to just peter out, but that is where I'm coming at this from.

For what it's worth, which is nothing, but since it is so important for you to know anyway, no, I don't think the tweets were "equally bad." The Pascal tweet equated Trump voters, a group that includes self-professed Confederates and Nazis, with Confederates and Nazis. "Should" he have posted the tweet? I don't know. I don't care. Is it "offensive"? I guess if you are a Trump voter who doesn't like being compared to Nazis, but then you ought to reflect on why you willingly entered into a political coalition with, well, Nazis. On the other hand, I guess it should come as no surprise that the Carano tweet has been grossly misrepresented by her defenders. The Holocaust was a real thing that actually happened, a continent-wide, state-run campaign of ethnic extermination, but you wouldn't really know that from people like Carano casually equating that with their experience of people posting mean facebook comments and heckling them in restaurants. She exists on the same spectrum as people like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who outright deny that the Holocaust happened at all, the difference between them is one of magnitude, not of kind. If you can't see her tweet for what it is, you're really just telling on yourself, and when things are open again you ought to consider taking a trip to Europe to visit a concentration camp if you can afford it. I'm not going to argue this any further because I don't even think the content of the tweet is germane to the issues that actually matter here, but since you have helpfully provided the tweets side-by-side in your post above and you want so badly to know what people think about them, there it is.

[DColeKC]

^Point being that there are factions proud with tying the 3 together (Confederacy, Nazi like supremacy and Trump), it's become a movement that's still alive. You're 'well not everybody is an extremist so those who callout Trumpism is a double standard' response is exactly how it becomes more empowered, through 3rd degree indirect support for supremecy. Those who voted for him again 2nd time were essentially considering it acceptable to allow supremacy to rise indirectly in order to get what they want.

Is unlikely this would have gotten to this level with most any relatively more level headed GOP leader at the helm.

I’ve not said that calling out trumpism is a double standard? I also disagree that those who voted for him a second time were ok with the rise of white supremacy. Some people don’t buy the hype that there’s this massive and increasing white supremacy population but understand there’s always been racist and there will be racist people 200 years from now regardless.

I think the Republican Party could pass laws making penalties for hate crimes stiffer, denounce white supremacy daily and even end up with more minority members than Democrats and still they’d be labeled as the more racist supporting party. The Democratic Party has invested decades into pretending to be the party that’s looking out for minorities and the poor. While the GOP has stuck with the “we will help you, help yourself” stance which hasn’t helped them gain much traction in regards to support even though it’s a fact those types of policies have helped.

I’ll be curious to see how the next white republican president is treated and of radicals and white supremacists support that person. It’s not like Trump or republicans asked racists to hitch their wagon to the Republican Party. You can literally tell them they’re repugnant and they still support.

While almost any other Republican candidate would likely have been a far better president, I feel the last 4 years were brewing before Trump even declared his candidacy.

[flyingember]

I think the Republican Party could pass laws making penalties for hate crimes stiffer, denounce white supremacy daily and even end up with more minority members than Democrats and still they’d be labeled as the more racist supporting party. The Democratic Party has invested decades into pretending to be the party that’s looking out for minorities and the poor. While the GOP has stuck with the “we will help you, help yourself” stance which hasn’t helped them gain much traction in regards to support even though it’s a fact those types of policies have helped.

In 2016 there were multiple candidates I could see doing just what you describe, who would have been a realistic choice for both white and minority voters, and primary voters didn't pick them. They didn't want those kind of candidates as a party.

A core problem isn't inability to hold a belief, it's inability to be willing to lose over a moral stance.

They won't change until they start losing state houses.

[DColeKC]

I think the Republican Party could pass laws making penalties for hate crimes stiffer, denounce white supremacy daily and even end up with more minority members than Democrats and still they’d be labeled as the more racist supporting party. The Democratic Party has invested decades into pretending to be the party that’s looking out for minorities and the poor. While the GOP has stuck with the “we will help you, help yourself” stance which hasn’t helped them gain much traction in regards to support even though it’s a fact those types of policies have helped.

In 2016 there were multiple candidates I could see doing just what you describe, who would have been a realistic choice for both white and minority voters, and primary voters didn't pick them. They didn't want those kind of candidates as a party.

A core problem isn't inability to hold a belief, it's inability to be willing to lose over a moral stance.

They won't change until they start losing state houses.

I think the most powerful republicans at first thought Trump had no chance and he ended up being far more popular than they could have ever imagined. Once they saw that, even a poor candidate like Trump was better than a Hilary victory.

I want a Haley/Scott ticket in 2024. No Trump and hopefully he understands he can make more money being the GOP’s hype man than being in the White House.

[normalthings]

Lucas backing city ordinance supporting national reparations

http://cityclerk.kcmo.org/LiveWeb/Docum ... WXYRrK9Fup

[DColeKC]

Lucas backing city ordinance supporting national reparations

http://cityclerk.kcmo.org/LiveWeb/Docum ... WXYRrK9Fup

Everyone's afraid to chime in on this one. LOL

[TheSmokinPun]

Lucas backing city ordinance supporting national reparations

http://cityclerk.kcmo.org/LiveWeb/Docum ... WXYRrK9Fup

Everyone's afraid to chime in on this one. LOL

You pushed it into racial boundaries, no one else did.

[DColeKC]

Lucas backing city ordinance supporting national reparations

http://cityclerk.kcmo.org/LiveWeb/Docum ... WXYRrK9Fup

Everyone's afraid to chime in on this one. LOL

You pushed it into racial boundaries, no one else did.

Huh???? How do you comment on your opinion about national reparations and not get into racial boundaries. That's the exact reason no one has spoken up about it, especially in opposition.

I'm just saying it's a topic centered around race, so people are hesitant on here to discuss. But yeah, I'm the one who pushed it into racial boundaries.