That got her shitcanned?

Using pogroms as a simile for political hatred?

Really?

It's 100% political tribalism.

She 'marginalized' the trans 'community' by listing her pronouns as 'bleep, blop blorp.'

She poked fund at mask and vaccine puritans.

All the shit that makes the left an emotional mess, without being objectively harmful, . . . just 'horrendous' in the parlance of the wokescolds.

I'm torn, . . because since this is how they feel and how radicalized they are in their hearts, I support them going hog wild and balls to the wall with their pogroms, . . . but it takes immense faith in humanity to patiently wait for us to collectively realize how radical and perverse they are and start figuring out how to push back.

Yep, I'm aware.

I assume this is like most other SJW assassinations - big corporate whatever pandering to people who don't watch their shows or buy their products, while pissing off the people who actually do watch their show and buy their products.

I don't follow social media, so I can only assume based on posts here and this quote that she was attempting to compare those with right leaning beliefs to Jews in Nazi Germany? Wow. While that might be the dumbest victimist idealogy I have ever seen, it doesn't seem to be advocating violence or anything worthy of being fired IMO.

Stupid AF comment though. This whole "I'm a victim" movement needs to stop. I'm trying to imagine a recent more insensitive, whiney, "whoa is me" comment and I just can't think of any. I love Gina, but damn this is stupid. :(

Well firing her certainly disproved her point.

And in case you are missing the point, it's not that being shunned for ideology is THE SAME as the holocaust. It's that these things start with small irrationalities that breed and grow.

The holocaust wasn't nonexistent one day, then in full force the next. It started on an individual interpersonal level, frictions and discomforts causing confrontation, blame being placed, generalizations taking hold, and justifications for ill-treatment cascading into each other as they escalated and escalated.

So as we sit now, what's your position? Is the level of division over differences in perspective merited? Should it escalate? Is it non-existent? Is it something to ignore? What?

This thread has diverged pretty deep into DC territory IMO, but I'll answer your question and then drop out of non-show discussion. You're not going to like my position and I really don't want to get dragged into a political fight. As I said though, I don't believe that single post (I have no idea what else she may have posted) should result in her being fired.

As to the content of the post, I disagree with it wholeheartedly. It is a bastardization of the "First they came..." poem to fit a movement that is closer to that of the racial purity movement of Nazism than the victims and regret of "do nothing" bystanders it was meant to represent. Much the same way that anti-fascism views are now portrayed as being terroristic. I still don't understand how that came about.

For the first time in my life I voted Democrat. I've bounced between the conservative views of my youth in the 80's and the "just leave me alone" libertarian views of the early 2000s. None of those views are represented in the current GOP today. If a 40 year history of conservative voting makes me a RINO, then I guess I want nothing to do with this current party. Trumpism already "cancelled" me, so I won't shed a tear if its proponents receive the same treatment.

So yeah, my position is not going to be popular with either side of the aisle.

Carano is not a good actress. It would have been a disaster having her as the lead in any show.

The poem itself is a rhetorical summation of a perspective.
I disagree with the notion that applying that perspective in novel situations is a 'bastardization,' certainly if it's based on the identity of the people applying it rather than the merit of the application.
And even if it is, whatever subjective gravity and consequence you grant 'bastardization,' labeling it 'dumbest victim ideology' can't help but rebound on the original summation encapsulated in the poem itself.

I get that you disagree with her being fired, and I appreciate it, but I disagree with the hyperbolic characterization of the nature of her posts, particularly as it seems more on your inferences regarding the identity of people being championed by her posts than the merits of the observations themselves.

____

Truth be told, I have and have long had severe reservations about the entire industry of short homilies like the poem in question being transformed into some universal mandate. In the case of the sentiments of the poem I've always silently wondered 'what if they "come for" someone for good reason?' Or 'what if what you call 'coming for' is just criticism or rebuke?' I know people on the other side understand this conundrum, because they make the same arguments that 'cancel culture is just consequences,' and 'free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence.' But they seem to dogmatically apply these 'lessons' when it's what they want to do anyway, and disregard them without compunction when they don't care or even support the consequences.

She has limited range for sure. Perfect for the role here though.

Not going to argue or disagree with your points, just wanted to point out that the poem is not rhetorical in any way. It was written by a German pastor who supported the rise of Hitler and later came to regret that choice. That perspective probably sharpened after being imprisoned in Dachau for speaking against the Nazi "progrom". Another word that seems to be losing its meaning as it's twisted for use by the current Trumpist victim culture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

Ugh. I did not want to have this discussion and should have stuck to my guns and just held my tongue. Please, I leave the last word to you and cancel myself. I don't like myself when I get pissy about politics. :(

OK, last post on the topic, I promise. Just thought it probably relevant to include the actual post and image it included. Personally, I can see why she deleted it and why it triggered people.

https://uploads.dailydot.com/2021/02...2&wpsize=large

Really not trying to extend the argument, but there isn't a fiber in my being that will alow me to ignore the 'rhetorical' part.

I'm sensing you have an inferential impression of rhetoric that is unmerited.

Rhetoric is the attempt to be persuasive through language. At it's base, nothing more. It seems that you are appending disreputable sub-strategies and methods, such as sophistry or sloganeering, which was not my intent in using the term.

The poem absolutely is a rhetorical summation. The pastor was explicitly and passionately attempting to put his perspective into a memorable and affecting set of words for persuasive purposes.

Even in critiquing the rhetoric, it's not so much the initial impulse to express the sentiment, or the manner in which he did so. The critique I expressed above is that many people don't think fully through the lesson of the poem itself and apply it dogmatically and unthinkingly. That's a fault of the audience, not the author.

A Bill Burr spinoff would be more interesting and entertaining than whatever they were developing with her. Imagine the cool shit, situations that the writers could have him dropped into.

I won't miss her because we cancelled Disney+, ESPN+, and Hulu today. I'm sick of this bullshit. They won't care, but I do and that's all that matters to me. The only way to stop this shit is to not feed it, and you feed it by giving them your money.

Meh. She was a really shitty actress. The only reason she's there is because she's a giant beast of a woman.