All purpose news and politics thread part VII: News & Politics Total Landscaping

[Mister Mets]

The little evidence we have is that Disney simply doesn't want controversy regardless of political leanings.

Gunn was fired for a campaign spearheaded by right-wing activists, this was a case where right-winger were outraged that Gunn criticized Ben Shapiro and got Gunn into trouble. Those guys knew that Disney simply can't handle that sort of negative attention and the company fired Gunn.

There's already precedent here. Like I said earlier, I think this stuff goes into whatever contract these guys signed with Disney. Most jobs do have clauses that require people not to post incendiary stuff on social media (hence why a lot of us stick to message boards ), so if this was in her contract, she should have done better to keep her job. No one is forcing anyone to post anything on social media, I don't know why Hollywood folk feel the need to constantly do so.

I wasn't a fan of the Gunn firing when it happened.
https://community.cbr.com/showthread...=1#post3810008

I think it was wrong for Disney to drop Gunn for a few reasons.

Posted from elsewhere.

1. The comments were made years ago, well before Gunn was hired for Guardians of the Galaxy Volume One. When it comes to sick jokes, there should be the equivalent of a statue of limitations.

2. I am a strong believer in the idea that artistic work should be judged on its merit, rather than on perceptions of the character of the people involved. Focusing on things that have nothing to do with the quality of the work will lead to worse work in the future, and I don't think our problem as a society is that movies are too good. Disney firing Gunn and going for their second choice is a compromise on quality, and we should have as little of that as possible.

3. I'm concerned about the slippery slope here, when we set the precedent that someone can be fired for things they said years before their current project, and when we expand reasons that people can be fired that have nothing to do with the quality of their work. This isn't going to stop with Gunn. Angry left-wingers are going to want their scalp, and the whole process is going to repeat itself. This is especially problematic with massive changes in standards (IE- gay marriage went from a position most people oppose to something most people support within a few years.)

4. This particular situation is due to a troll named Mike Cernovich, who tries to get people he agrees with fired. There's no question about his involvement here.

The dude bragged about it to the Huffington Post.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/.../mike-cernovich-james...

He's been written about before and he is a nasty piece of work.
https://nymag.com/.../how-mike-cernovich-is-pizzagating...
https://www.thewrap.com/meet-mike-ce...-the-right.../

I really hate people who act in bad faith like Cernovich, and believe that he should not be given what he wants. To give a comic book metaphor, if the Joker gives you a letter, you don't read it, you burn it.

What James Gunn had said is still more outrageous than what Gina Carano said.

"Laughter is the best medicine. That's why I laugh at people with AIDS."
"I want to go big-game hunting. I know that it's morally questionable. That's why I want to go big game raping."
"For the record, I'm against rape AND baby-eating in real life. Unless you're really hungry."

I get that Disney wants to avoid controversy, but they don't seem to fire people for offending the right.

My metric remains that in most cases, a company like Disney shouldn't fire anyone over political views unless they're willing to say they don't want anyone who agrees with that person as a customer.

Presume away.

Don't you mean that it won't? The phrase doesn't make sense otherwise.

We are? Where?

What's the confusion?

That is now what you wrote, though. English is not my first language and you have started leaving off words from tweets by my judgment. That makes it even harder than usual to get what you are trying to say.

I think if you reread what I said it can work with the understanding that the accident is not why he was hospitalized, but why this was not shared with relevant people for several days. "It's not great that it was by accident that a cabinet member was hospitalized for days without relevant people in the administration knowing."

He was diagnosed with prostate cancer in December, hospitalized on January 1st and sent to an ICU on January 2nd. A deputy secretary of defense and the white house weren't informed until January 4th.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lloyd-a...e-white-house/

Something's seriously wrong with communication if the delayed disclosure occurred by accident.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...or-scotus.html

Sam Alito thinks that excusing jurors for being unable to put their religion aside and approach questions involving homosexuality impartially is ‘religious persecution’ and specifically mentions Obergefell?

But tell me again how the GOP isn’t going to go after marriage equality. Just like they didn’t go after women’s right to safe and legal abortion access.

There weren't four people on the Court willing to hear this case.

Alito's views seem to be in the minority, even within the current court.

If the Supreme Court were to rule that Obergefell was an incorrect decision, there are still federal protections in place as a result of the later Respect for Marriage Act.

[zinderel]

And here’s Mets, playing ‘both sides’ nonsense by comparing the demonstrably shitty things that James Gunn said years ago - that he addressed and apologized for - with the demonstrably shitty things that Gina Carano said RECENTLY, has never apologized for, and is suing Disney over (because she faced consequences for her unapologetic shittiness).

Anything to defend your party’s favorite bigots, eh?

[Robotman]

Extremism is US voters' greatest worry, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds



I am impressed: In spite of the media's best efforts and all the GOP's lamenting, people put immigration in third place and correctly picked the threats to democracy.

Yeah but “extremism” is in the eye of the beholder. I’m sure many of those polled consider people who support trans rights and a woman’s right to choose as extremists.

[Mister Mets]

You defend the Nazis in your party at every opportunity by suggesting that Democrats are ‘just as bad’, or by attempting to gaslight us by pretending that we don’t see what we plainly see. Or by simply ignoring when people point it out. That’s what matters. Not being specific about whether the Nazis at CPAC wore loafers instead of sneakers. It doesn’t matter that you’re ‘right’ when you are defending literal Nazism on display at (what used to be) your party’s big event, until your party sold it’s soul to a Nazi enthusiast and his supporters.

Much of the criticism leveled at you is your repeated defense of your party no matter how atrocious its actions, no matter how many videos or transcripts exist, while you whined vociferously, for days, about a t-shirt that said ‘I don’t believe in borders’ (worn by a black man). And you do it often enough that people HAVE responded to your requests for ‘posting specifics’, only for you to ignore them or condescend to them or mock them. Multiple people saying the SAME thing, and hear you are. Pretending again to be the rational one, condescending to those who criticize, and pretending that people are criticizing your ‘need for specificity’ and not the thing you’re being pedantic ABOUT.

It doesn't matter that Keith Ellison is black. It does matter that he was in House leadership, and unanimously voted Vice-Chairman of the DNC. Every single member of the Democratic National Committee believed he was an important voice worthy of support.

If the claim is that pointing out that what his shirt said is so ridiculous that it deserves to be called out years later, the evidence that Republicans are Nazis has to be significantly better than that (because obviously there's a middle ground where evidence isn't so convincing that you'll be persuaded, but where it isn't so outrageous that it's ridiculous to worry.

Lol. You mean if they were able to give the Republicans even more concessions? No, dude.

It's more about the stuff swing voters want to see.

But it does seem that Democrats have responded to Trump by moving left. And this implies that the likelihood of his renomination is an opportunity, rather than a crisis.

“Meet me in the middle!”, cries the ‘conservative’.
The Democrat sighs and gives up on the ERA in order to keep the government SOMEWHAT functional for another few months.
Or voting rights.
Or food stamps.
Or environmental standards.
Or regulations intended to protect the worker.
Again…

The Republican takes a step back. “Meet me in the middle!”

That is the history of America over the last 50 years. And now, finally, your party has become so deeply inbred (metaphorically speaking) and willfully incompetent (literally speaking) that it’s all coming to a head in your party choosing a greedy, racist, rapist, lying, cheating, stealing, totalitarian Nazi enthusiast as Irma leader and figurehead and paragon of Republican virtue and values to the world. And you have to try to make that palatable to non-MAGAts. So you pretend that non-MAGAts are the problem, not the proto-fascistic band of racist, homophobic, greedy, woman haters you call a political party.

It does not seem the country has moved to the right over the last 50 years, in terms of protections offered minority groups or per-capita spending, adjusted for inflation.

You voted for Biden? Good for you. That’s part of why anyone still engages with you. You are CAPABLE of thoughtful discussion, at times.

But you still defend the Nazis in your party and refuse to call them out. Which, to some, might indicate that you don’t disagree with them…given that you say you call out your party for the things you disagree with.

What’s sketchy about calling out someone who repeatedly and consistently defends a party whose leaders and voters constantly espouse Nazi rhetoric and openly embrace Nazi voters and use Nazi symbols at their events?

Criticizing the Republican Party, and it’s defenders, for embracing literal Nazis - and providing proof over the years in the form of photos, videos, and transcripts of speeches given by Republican Party leaders, candidates, and voters over the last, oh, 10 years? The way people on this forum have done? That’s not ‘tribalism’.

That’s patriotism. Your party forgot that while they were busy wrapping themselves in the flag and waving upside down Bibles to provide cover for literal Nazis in their ranks. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again:

When you sit at a table full of neo-Nazis who are openly praising the Nazis and spouting their rhetoric, and using their symbols and propaganda techniques?

When you don’t get up to leave or take the time to correct them?

When you instead defend them against people who point at the neo-Nazis and say ‘Those are Nazis!’? “We need to be specific, see…the Nazi Party dissolved after WW2, so these fine men spouting racist, misogynistic rhetoric, being WILDLY anti-Semitic, calling for gay genocide, holding book burnings, beating trans people to death for Jesus, and treating women like breeding stock? They can’t POSSIBLY be Nazis. You should be more specific, or no one will take you seriously…”

When you suggest that those pointing this all out have some ‘partisan motive’ for pointing out that you’re sitting at a table full of Nazis? And DEFENDING them at every turn?

You don’t get to complain about being associated with Nazis.

Sorry.

I’m through playing ‘nice’ when your party leadership is actively working on stripping away the rights of anyone your party’s base deems subhuman.

The sketchy part is when people call me out for not saying anything without asking the question.

It seems you're pissed off that I didn't come to the same conclusion as you did, but you're not willing to put yourself out there by saying exactly what it is that persuaded you to come to an extreme conclusion, that a major political party is full of Nazis.

That argument is not a proxy for whether Republicans are right, although it can be a proxy for whether a particular critic is reasonable.

This is a non-partisan forum, so Trump voters should be welcome to share their views and treated the same way you would like sensitive people on your side to be treated.

Let's look at our context. CaptainEurope said:



You responded:



He said he was worried about your comfort level with fascism.

Your response is about the Republican party. You don't respond to his concern over your seeming comfort with fascism, at all.

I mean, to be explicit, it's like he said, "It's a problem that you are okay with fascism." and you responded, "Why do you hate Republicans?"

You completely ignore the topic of fascism, instead resorting to talking about "sides".

Is it only that only "Democrats, or [their] international equivalents" care about fascism, or believe it exists or is a problem?

You can say that, if that is your opinion. I would just think it more clear to just outright say that, rather than talk about "sides".

(I don't consider myself a "consistent Democrat", fwiw. Eff those corporatist jerwads, mostly. But yeah, Republicans have to be consistently worse. This opinion does not make me a Democrat, so I at least am politely requesting that I am not lumped in with them.)

If someone thinks I'm comfortable with fascism, they should call me out for posts in which I'm clearly wrong on the topic.

But because it's not about specifics, the criticism seems to be more about what side I'm on.

The tribalism problem is more about groupthink, that it gets easy to come to extreme conclusions.

Exaggerating fascism is certainly a problem. Among other things, it encourages right-wing wierdos to think they're on the verge of victory.

The whole discussion about fascism strikes me as similar to how some people on the right see secret communists everywhere, so that certainly influences my interpretation here.

[Tami]

Supreme Court will consider Trump’s immunity claims in D.C. Jan. 6 trial

The justices set argument for the week of April 22 to consider a unanimous ruling from a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that rejected Trump’s sweeping assertion of immunity from prosecution.

[Catlady in training]

‘Biden needs to be pro-peace’: Michigan anti-war campaign hails huge vote tally
More than 100,000 Democrats checked ‘uncommitted’ in primary election in rebuke to president’s unwavering support for Israel

It's sad to see so many Democrats don't care enough about the rights of women and trans people in their own country and are willing to let a criminal win in order to make a statement.

[zinderel]

It doesn't matter that Keith Ellison is black. It does matter that he was in House leadership, and unanimously voted Vice-Chairman of the DNC. Every single member of the Democratic National Committee believed he was an important voice worthy of support.

If the claim is that pointing out that what his shirt said is so ridiculous that it deserves to be called out years later, the evidence that Republicans are Nazis has to be significantly better than that (because obviously there's a middle ground where evidence isn't so convincing that you'll be persuaded, but where it isn't so outrageous that it's ridiculous to worry.

It's more about the stuff swing voters want to see.

But it does seem that Democrats have responded to Trump by moving left. And this implies that the likelihood of his renomination is an opportunity, rather than a crisis.

It does not seem the country has moved to the right over the last 50 years, in terms of protections offered minority groups or per-capita spending, adjusted for inflation.
The sketchy part is when people call me out for not saying anything without asking the question.

It seems you're pissed off that I didn't come to the same conclusion as you did, but you're not willing to put yourself out there by saying exactly what it is that persuaded you to come to an extreme conclusion, that a major political party is full of Nazis.

That argument is not a proxy for whether Republicans are right, although it can be a proxy for whether a particular critic is reasonable.

This is a non-partisan forum, so Trump voters should be welcome to share their views and treated the same way you would like sensitive people on your side to be treated.

If someone thinks I'm comfortable with fascism, they should call me out for posts in which I'm clearly wrong on the topic.

But because it's not about specifics, the criticism seems to be more about what side I'm on.

The tribalism problem is more about groupthink, that it gets easy to come to extreme conclusions.

Exaggerating fascism is certainly a problem. Among other things, it encourages right-wing wierdos to think they're on the verge of victory.

The whole discussion about fascism strikes me as similar to how some people on the right see secret communists everywhere, so that certainly influences my interpretation here.

We have.

Repeatedly.

And every time, you ignore, condescend, and belittle. Or distract attention to something a ‘leftist’ did that isn’t related but is somehow ‘worse’ than the right repeatedly, and openly embracing Nazis. Like Kieth Ellison wearing a shirt that said he didn’t believe in borders. TOTALLY proof that the left is JUST AS BAD as the GOP, and therefore no one can criticize the GOP, or it’s defenders…

So no one’s willing to cater to your JAQing off in defense of the Nazification of your political party.

But please, continue blaming those of us pointing out the Nazification of the GOP for the Nazification of the GOP. It just proves our point and makes it so we don’t need to go digging through ten years of posts for you to ignore.

[Panfoot]

It's sad to see so many Democrats don't care enough about the rights of women and trans people in their own country and are willing to let a criminal win in order to make a statement.

Well to be fair, a lot of those voters are Muslim Americans who are generally not friends to those groups in the first place(see the pride flag ban in Hamtramck Michigan), I bet quite a few of them would say they were Republicans, if it wasn't for that pesky bit of Islamophobia they have a record of. Obviously not a good thing, but not totally unexpected.

[Catlady in training]

What James Gunn had said is still more outrageous than what Gina Carano said.

"Laughter is the best medicine. That's why I laugh at people with AIDS."
"I want to go big-game hunting. I know that it's morally questionable. That's why I want to go big game raping."
"For the record, I'm against rape AND baby-eating in real life. Unless you're really hungry."

I get that Disney wants to avoid controversy, but they don't seem to fire people for offending the right.

My metric remains that in most cases, a company like Disney shouldn't fire anyone over political views unless they're willing to say they don't want anyone who agrees with that person as a customer.

I would say that they are equally bad, there is no need to play who is more offensive, especially since when it comes to celebrities, people often decide depending on who makes the statement and how much they like them. The stuff he said is horrible. The difference as I understand is that Gunn made those comments in the past and has since apologized and people moved on. If he made those statements when he was employed by Disney and then doubled down, I would be all for him getting fired, no matter how much outcry his friends from GotG made.

I don't think anyone of the two was fired for their political position. I bet people at Disney have many different positions about all sorts of topics. It was about the stuff they posted and their attitude afterwards.

(Also, how does Gunn offend people on the right by the stuff you quoted? He jokes about AIDS and rape, people on the right usually love that stuff.)

[Catlady in training]

Well to be fair, a lot of those voters are Muslim Americans who are generally not friends to those groups in the first place(see the pride flag ban in Hamtramck Michigan), I bet quite a few of them would say they were Republicans, if it wasn't for that pesky bit of Islamophobia they have a record of. Obviously not a good thing, but not totally unexpected.

Man, I don't envy Biden having to cater so many different groups of people. Too much to one side and he might lose the moderates, too much to the other and he might lose those who expect him to work miracles.

[Panfoot]

(Also, how does Gunn offend people on the right by the stuff you quoted? He jokes about AIDS and rape, people on the right usually love that stuff.)

See that's a strange point to make in the first place, this isn't a left vs right thing, it's bigotry vs tasteless, though bigotry is part of the right wing DNA. Gunn's jokes, which as pointed out he apologized for AND was temporarily let go for, are mostly just edgy tasteless crap. Carano's stuff though, was just mocking bigotry(and a baffling holocaust comparison). We wouldn't be having this debate if she instead tweeted a bunch of stereotypical Black, Asian, Jewish, etc. stuff, but generally transphobia mostly gets a free pass, she just managed to push it too far.

[Panfoot]

Man, I don't envy Biden having to cater so many different groups of people. Too much to one side and he might lose the moderates, too much to the other and he might lose those who expect him to work miracles.

Yeah, there is no way he can please everyone, and especially on the Israel/Palestine issue he's in an impossible position. I myself am a bit disappointed in his response so far, but that's not gonna make me vote for the guy who's supporters would love for me to not exist.

[babyblob]

We got to see the fight for Speaker of the House which was sad and Pathetic. Now we get to see a repeat in the Senate as people look to take Mitch M position.

[Deathstroke]

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/lau...rrested-tyler/

Godly Christian, holy warrior, patriot, professional lawmaker, and ‘loving mother’ Lauren Boebert’s eldest spawn proves the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

22 charges...that's some family values she's imparting there.

[Panfoot]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-68353437

Ghana's parliament has passed a tough new bill that imposes a prison sentence of up to three years for anyone convicted of identifying as LGBTQ+.

It also imposes a maximum five-year jail term for forming or funding LGBTQ+ groups.

The GOP's wet dream, I bet it's not long before it's uncovered that some US Christian hate group has some involvement(not that African Christian's aren't capable of being horrible people on their own).