I wonder how that will go. Interesting to see, actually. Winning might open door for other celebrities who were cancelled over twitter out-roar. Will Disney settle? Will they go to court?
She was only payed $25,000 per episode? That's like.... She spends more money to get to set.
I'm surprised it took her this long. I may not agree with certain things that people say or do, but I respect their right to say and do those things.
shareDisney didn't take away her right to say anything.
shareNo they did not. They just punished her for it.
shareThey aren't the government. Disney almost certainly have this covered in any contract you sign.
shareSo why didn't they fire Pedro Pascal for his questionable political commentary that was actually hateful and divisive, while all Carano did was point out that society is heading in a dangerous direction - which is confirmed to be true as we can see.
shareI mean, I'm told that Gina Carano actually was contracted - and they simply didn't pick her up for future projects.
Pedro Pascal is of much greater value and Disney does reserve the right to express preferences here.
They didn't just simply "not pick her up", they literally fired her from the project BEFORE any contract ran out. You do not even know that!?
And worse, you support firing people under false pretense for arbitrary reasons and have them look away when their cash cow does even worse things. In other words, extreme double standards.
No integrity, no morale compass. Okay, good to know.
>They didn't just simply "not pick her up", they literally fired her from the project BEFORE any contract ran out. You do not even know that!?
As in they let the contract lapse and told her they had no more need of her.
>And worse, you support firing people under false pretense for arbitrary reasons and have them look away when their cash cow does even worse things. In other words, extreme double standards.
Disney almost certainly will have covered this in their contracts.
>No integrity, no morale compass. Okay, good to know.
I won't be lectured by someone who seems to support banning LGBT people from TV and film
I am not supporting banning anyone from TV or film, be as gay as you wanna be, I do not care.
What I do care about is starting to fight back against a radical ideology that seeks to destroy my values and way of life and oppress anyone who dares to speak out against it - as we can see across the west for many years now.
>I am not supporting banning anyone from TV or film, be as gay as you wanna be, I do not care.
You literally just endorsed the Russian "LGBT propaganda" ban which does, amongst other things, exactly that.
>What I do care about is starting to fight back against a radical ideology that seeks to destroy my values and way of life and oppress anyone who dares to speak out against it - as we can see across the west for many years now.
And how does it do that?
> You literally just endorsed the Russian "LGBT propaganda" ban which does, amongst other things, exactly that.
No, I endorsed this:
"First Russian prosecution of LGBT rainbow flag as “extremist symbol”."
Which is what it is by now. The movement itself has become extreme by negatively affecting and even harassing and persecuting people who speak out against it (the movement, not gay or whatever people).
That alone is enough for me.
If we ban swastika flags (the case in my country), I do not see why we should not ban symbology of other hateful ideologies that seek to grab power and influence to ultimately enforce their views and ideas onto those that do not share them - or destroy them.
> And how does it do that?
If you do not want to hear the answer, why ask the question?
Because whatever I would say now, you'd only dismiss anyways, so why bother?
>Which is what it is by now. The movement itself has become extreme by negatively affecting and even harassing and persecuting people who speak out against it (the movement, not gay or whatever people).
How has it become "extreme"? Who have they "harassed" and "persecuted"?
Also define where LGBT expression begins and LGBT "activism" begins please.
>If we ban swastika flags (the case in my country), I do not see why we should not ban symbology of other hateful ideologies that seek to grab power and influence to ultimately enforce their views and ideas onto those that do not share them - or destroy them.
How are they planning on doing that?
>If you do not want to hear the answer, why ask the question?
I do want to hear the answer.
>Because whatever I would say now, you'd only dismiss anyways, so why bother?
Almost certainly. But I'm still asking.
> I am not supporting banning anyone from TV or film, be as gay as you wanna be, I do not care.
> You literally just endorsed the Russian "LGBT propaganda" ban which does, amongst other things, exactly that.
See, that's the problem with ideologues like you. You do not really listen to what your political opponents say, you anticipate what they say.
I said I do not care about gay people being in film or not and that I do not want to ban anyone, gay or not. But that was never what this is about - that is what you made it about.
A gay actor is not "LGBTQ propaganda", a gay actor is just a gay actor.
If you fail to see the difference, that's on you.
>See, that's the problem with ideologues like you. You do not really listen to what your political opponents say, you anticipate what they say.
Maybe don't endorse a thread about the LGBT ban in Russia then.
>A gay actor is not "LGBTQ propaganda", a gay actor is just a gay actor.
What would be "LGBTQ propaganda" then?
In Russia, they literally define it as any character who is gay. They recently just fined two women for kissing and uploading it online: https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/2024/02/06/two-russian-women-kissing-on-video-charged-with-lgbt-propaganda-en-news
> Maybe don't endorse a thread about the LGBT ban in Russia then.
Why not? The information you shared in that thread said nothing about banning gay people or anything of the sort. It only stated LGBTQ propaganda and the caption stated flags (so symbology) as an example.
It is not my fault the article you shared, neither yourself, were more specific, so I can only comment on what I see and leave assumptions out of the way.
I said it before and I say it again, I do not endorse banning people - I leave that to the political left. But maybe do not be so surprised when people are fed up after years and years of extreme pandering and propaganda for a wolf in sheepskin and thus endorse steps against this nonsense.
>Why not? The information you shared in that thread said nothing about banning gay people or anything of the sort. It only stated LGBTQ propaganda and the caption stated flags (so symbology) as an example.
That you wish to persecute a political and social movement is enough for me to regard you, ultimately, as an anti-american who hates free expression.
And you still have not defined "LGBTQ propaganda".
> That you wish to persecute a political and social movement is enough for me to regard you, ultimately, as an anti-american who hates free expression.
Anti-American?
I am not even American nor do I live in the United States. Good job, buddy.
Instead, I live in a country where I will go to prison for "hate speech" should I speak out openly against the LGBTQ movement - so tell me more about freedom of expression and how much I hate it!
> And you still have not defined "LGBTQ propaganda".
Nor did you and either way that is irrelevant. What is relevant is how Russian law sees it and your article wasn't exactly precise about that, neither were you.
So take it up with Putin, not me.
I made clear, multiple times by now, that I am against the movement and agree with Russian law in that I also consider it to be a radical movement that ultimately hurts society more than it does help.
You reading more into this than there really is, is again not my problem, but yours.
>Anti-American?
Anti-western.
>Instead, I live in a country where I will go to prison for "hate speech" should I speak out openly against the LGBTQ movement - so tell me more about freedom of expression and how much I hate it!
And that should change too.
It's funny how you can rightly complain about being arrested for saying things against the LGBT movement, but in the same breath endorse their potential arrest. Blatant flagrant authoritarian hypcocrisy.
>Nor did you and either way that is irrelevant. What is relevant is how Russian law sees it and your article wasn't exactly precise about that, neither were you.
I don't make the claim that "LGBTQ propaganda" exists. You seem to.
>I made clear, multiple times by now, that I am against the movement and agree with Russian law in that I also consider it to be a radical movement that ultimately hurts society more than it does help.
I am "against" many movements, and view their objectives as potentially dangerous - but I don't wish to persecute their members and prosecute them for saying things I don't like. That is the language of dictatorship.
> Anti-western.
You said anti-American... moving the goalpost as we see fit now?
Anyways, anti-western is just as idiotic when I lamented the downfall of western societies previously.
> It's funny how you can rightly complain about being arrested for saying things against the LGBT movement, but in the same breath endorse their potential arrest. Blatant flagrant authoritarian hypcocrisy.
There is no hypocrisy and I do not endorse the arrest of gay people, I said that many times now, why do you keep ignoring this?
I also made clear - again multiple times - that I do endorse to fight against radical political movements that seek to destroy my way of life and my values - those the west had until the radical left took over.
I understand that you will continue to try and frame this as something it isn't - because what else could you do? But that did not work before and it won't work in the future, you might as well try something else at this point.
I am also not authoritarian, I am libertarian. You leave me alone, I leave you alone. Worked great for a long time in western societies. But that does not work anymore, because I am not being left alone... so I will fight back.
Edit:
> I am "against" many movements, and view their objectives as potentially dangerous - but I don't wish to persecute their members and prosecute them for saying things I don't like. That is the language of dictatorship.
I agree!
And that is exactly why I am not telling anyone they cannot say what they want to say.
Doesn't mean I am looking the other way when a destructive ideology tries to destroy me.
>You said anti-American... moving the goalpost as we see fit now?
Both.
>Anyways, anti-western is just as idiotic when I lamented the downfall of western societies previously.
You seem to want them to be more authoritarian towards people.
>There is no hypocrisy and I do not endorse the arrest of gay people, I said that many times now, why do you keep ignoring this?
That's not what I said. You think anyone who makes pro-LGBT comments, as in, associated with the LGBT movement should be arrested. You complain about the state possibly arresting you for being objectionable to them, but you would, if you could, arrest them for voicing their activism. That is the hypocrisy.
>I am also not authoritarian, I am libertarian. You leave me alone, I leave you alone. Worked great for a long time in western societies. But that does not work anymore, because I am not being left alone... so I will fight back.
Wishing to ban a political and social movement is not "libertarian". You wish to arrest people just for wearing pride badges. Following this I can assume that you want the state to shut down all pro-pride/LGBT websites, arrest all LGBT activists. This is not libertarianism. This is authoritarianism. You are for a big state that harasses LGBT activists.
And you still haven't outlined what "LGBT propaganda" is supposed to be.
>And that is exactly why I am not telling anyone they cannot say what they want to say.
Doesn't mean I am looking the other way when a destructive ideology tries to destroy me.
Yes you are. You are for arresting people who openly support the LGBT social movement. You endorsed Russia arresting someone for wearing an LGBT badge. This is just apologia for your very hypocritical authoritarianism.
And you still have not explained how they are "trying to destroy" you.
> Both.
Both is wrong.
> You seem to want them to be more authoritarian towards people.
No, I'd prefer the opposite. The less intrusion, the better. But we are at a point where that is perhaps not possible anymore. And we're not at it because of evil libertarians like me, we're here because of a radical, perverted movement that crossed the red line a long time ago (children) after infiltrating politics and the once kinda stable education systems to gain power and control, brainwashing children in ways and numbers unparalleled in the history of mankind.
> You think anyone who makes pro-LGBT comments, as in, associated with the LGBT movement should be arrested.
No one should be arrested for saying things.
It is one thing to "voice your activism" and another to do what they really do. If you think one should not fight against self-destruction, I don't know what to tell you. I don't care about people saying "I'm gay!" but I won't just look away when they start to cancel people for completely insane reasons - think of JK Rowling and what she got cancelled for. One of how many examples now?
If you get between a person and how they earn their bread, don't be surprised when there will be blood.
> Wishing to ban a political and social movement is not "libertarian".
I don't want to ban a political movement. I want to fight a radical movement that actively destroys the western world in record time.
>Both is wrong.
I disagree. Wanting to censor people for what they say is pretty anti-western.
>No, I'd prefer the opposite. The less intrusion, the better.
Unless someone wears a pride badge. Then you want them arrested.
>But we are at a point where that is perhaps not possible anymore. And we're not at it because of evil libertarians like me, we're here because of a radical, perverted movement that crossed the red line a long time ago (children) after infiltrating politics and the once kinda stable education systems to gain power and control, brainwashing children in ways and numbers unparalleled in the history of mankind.
How is the movement "perverted"? What "red line" did they cross with children?
I assume you live in the UK. Most people who do not give a fuck. It's a settled issue.
>No one should be arrested for saying things.
But apparently they should be for wearing badges.
>It is one thing to "voice your activism" and another to do what they really do. If you think one should not fight against self-destruction, I don't know what to tell you. I don't care about people saying "I'm gay!" but I won't just look away when they start to cancel people for completely insane reasons - think of JK Rowling and what she got cancelled for. One of how many examples now?
How can you criminalise being "cancelled", exactly?
>I don't want to ban a political movement. I want to fight a radical movement that actively destroys the western world in record time.
Wanting to suppress LGBT activism is doing exactly that. And you still haven't explained:
1) What "LGBT propaganda" is
2) How it is actively "destroying" the western world
3) What types of LGBT activism, beyond wearing LGBT badges in public, should be an arrestable offence?
> I disagree. Wanting to censor people for what they say is pretty anti-western.
So the LGBTQ movement in itself is anti-western, thanks for confirming that, perhaps now you understand why I am ultimately against that movement.
At least we found some common ground after all.
>So the LGBTQ movement in itself is anti-western, thanks for confirming that
What laws specifically does the entire LGBTQ movement call for passing to censor people?
>perhaps now you understand why I am ultimately against that movement.
I don't like Christianity or Islam, but I don't wish to ban people wearing crosses or hijabs in public. Because cultural, social and political expression matters to me.
>At least we found some common ground after all.
Not remotely.
And you still haven't explained:
1) What "LGBT propaganda" is
2) How it is actively "destroying" the western world
3) What types of LGBT activism, beyond wearing LGBT badges in public, should be an arrestable offence?
YOUR POSITION IS BASED ON YOUR ASSUMPTION AND GENERALIZATION OF AN ENTIRE SECTION OF THE POPULATION.
SO...FALSE.
">Nor did you and either way that is irrelevant. What is relevant is how Russian law sees it and your article wasn't exactly precise about that, neither were you."
I don't make the claim that "LGBTQ propaganda" exists. You seem to.
As far as we know, Pedro wasn't invited to a meeting with his employers to discuss how his comments affect the people he works with and he didn't refuse or tell them to stuff it.
shareHopefully the Zionist owners will be taken to the cleaners!
share
Even if she's right it's nearly impossible to prove.
She'll need someone on the inside to corroborate her claim otherwise she's just wasting her time and money.
She can put in court those chairmen and her lawyer will directly ask them.
shareIt's the same situation to Johnny Depp. He claim Disney fire him from Pirates, but... how can he prove it? Turn out he did it to jury.
shareI doubt if she wins. She was insulting and picking fights with Disney's customers.
If you owned a restaurant and your waitress repeatedly picked fights with customers and called them names, you would fire her. Period.
Anyway, many people don't like her. Disney isn't going to put an unlikable person in their shows. I remember you guys called her chunky.
Everyone but you likes her on MC.
shareYou're a liar! Click on the button leading to the oldest comments and you'll see plenty of MCers insulting her looks, acting and IQ. Are you even a Star Wars fan?
Her court documents are laughable because she credits herself for the success of The Mandolorian. She had a minor guest role for a few episodes. She was never going to become a regular. Some fans didn't like her character. Credit good writing and "Baby Yoda's" cuteness for the success for the show.
Elon Musk is funding this. So, plenty of money to get the job done.
shareMusk likes losing money.
shareHe can afford to "lose" as much money as he wants.
shareThey can't compel Disney to cast her in anything.
shareShe is seeking $75,000 in damages and a court order that would reinstate her on the hit series.
share"Carano, in a complaint filed Tuesday in California federal court, alleges she was fired for voicing right-wing opinions on social media and seeks a court order that would force Lucasfilm to recast her."
She's demanding to be recast in something else as part of her case.
Disney has hundreds of lawyers and billions of dollars. Good luck with her lawsuit. Carano opened her fat mouth and she got fired and nobody else will hire her. I just looked at her IMDb page and she has no future projects listed. Carano ruined her career by worshiping Trump. What a dumb woman.
share