Can’t argue with any of the above.
This thread proves your point. There’s more activity in a 24 hour time span on this thread than most of the others on SDMB. I honestly had no idea it would be this big of a deal when I posted. I’m sure I’ll be accused of trolling if I haven’t been already.
It’s just that threads that are easily proven wrong get a lot of attention. If you were to post a 9/11 Truther conspiracy (if that were still allowed) it would get tons of attention, too.
Gunn did a lot of the work himself, but there’s more than a little evidence that there were a few right-wing trolls (look up Mike Cernovich and Jack Posobiec, who took the lead on this) who deliberately did the digging so that they could target Disney execs, who do skew conservative, on social media against perceived liberals. There was more than a little astroturf involved in it. The main executive involved, Alan Horn, is still with Disney, though kind of in an emeritus role (from Chairman to Chief Creative Officer, whatever that is).
Gunn, to his detriment, did writes those tweets a decade earlier. To his credit, he didn’t get defensive about it, owned it, and did all the right things to show that his re-hiring wasn’t a mistake.
And yet you have posted multiple times in a thread about it.
As noted earlier, people can multi-task. There’s little purpose pointing out how pointless the outrage is except as a sort of performative apathy - to make ourselves feel a little more ‘above the fray’ or above the hoi-polloi by being oh-so-equitable and level headed in our assessments. It’s akin to performative centrism / both-sidesism.
If it’s truly unimportant, it will blow over in the next news cycle, like everything else does. In the meantime, it’s not just unproductive but counterproductive to decry what a waste of time it is. If you really feel that way, walk the talk - don’t post on the topic. Nobody’s forcing you to spend time on it, so why are you if you really feel that way?
I don’t care about this one actor in particular, but I do care about being dismissive towards those that care about it in the moment. Expecting people to always and only focus on “important” issues, especially online, is a mug’s game and psychologically unhealthy to boot.
The SDMB is part of social media, IMO. Social media can be great – but it can also be very bad. We should continue to put pressure on the “bigs” of social media (i.e. Facebook, Twitter, etc.) to be better, which includes encouraging Twitter to sanction hate speech, promotion of anti-democratic conspiracy theories, etc.
Absolutely. I mean, Twitter may be bad, but it’s also the source of some of the best comedy happening right now. More high quality jokes are being produced there than some great comedians can write in a lifetime, and it makes them easily shared. Facebook does have its uses for communicating with friends and family. I will not deny that these things provide value.
This started long before social media - where do you think the tabloids make their money?
But can anyone really deny it’s worse now?
It’s absolutely worse now. Each individual has what is essentially their own printing press and television station, making Andy Warhol’s famous prophesy come true. It makes an already narcissistic culture like ours that much more narcissistic.
Since I stole it from elsewhere, it’s all yours. 
It is the correct term though.
Modern American conservatism is violently radical.
A brand-new contronym! Oh, joy!
Back in the day when tabloids were pushing Bat Boy, Elvis sightings, and UFO stories most Americans knew those stories were all bullshit. i.e. It didn’t affect the national discourse when it came to more serious topics. The National Enquirer and the Weekly World News weren’t used by Russian assets to exacerbate divisions within the United States nor did they serve to turn us against one another. The tabloids simply aren’t comparable to Facebook or Twitter.
Though I won’t deny that social media has done a lot of good. But it’s being used for some very bad things and we’ve yet figure out how to fit to society without causing harm.
I do. There are plenty of non-ignorant people who deserve that job more.
I sure hope that isn’t porn. Eww.
Right on schedule
What are the odds she didn’t have this gig lined up before she even posted the tweet?
About that “movie”:
From the link- “The movie will only be available to The Daily Wire’s members and the details of the movie are not known, according to Deadline.”
twitter is losing its shit lol
“I was a Teenaged Wolfenstein”…?
This mixes up two different positions, IMO. We’re not talking about calling them Nazis or fascists or misogynists. We’re talking about comparing having to wear a mask to the Holocaust.
I’m offended by this even without being Jewish. Even if I remove the Jewish component entirely, it’s still comparing having to do a minor thing to save lives to mass multiple genocide. It’s even backwards—the action that can kill people is not the people trying wear masks. I find it offensive as someone who has family and friends who died due to this pandemic.
I see this as completely different to calling someone a Nazi for actually believing significant and relevant things that Nazis did believe. We were actively dealing with the US’s first fascist president–a man who ran on all 14 characteristics of fascism. We were dealing with placing kids in what fits the definition of a concentration camp. We’re dealing with an attempted coup by white nationalist under the order of a president. Those claims have some legitimacy, and thus are much less offensive. Heck, I’ll make them myself when appropriate.
Yet I would not at any point say that any of that is comparable to the Holocaust or any other genocide. That’s a step too far, even for that. So it’s even more offensive for her to make that comparison to having to wear a little mask to avoid killing people. It makes light of those who died in the pandemic, even–people I personally know.
I’m sure not all Jewish people took offense to her remarks. But many did, and many have called it antisemitic. I also take offense, and I see how, with the explicit reference to Jewish people, that it is also antisemitic.
I also acknowledge what @asahi seems to want to ignore, which is that she didn’t apologize despite being told to do so, which negates his argument that she didn’t mean to offend. If you don’t mean to offend, you apologize. And she did in fact have a lot of time to do so.
If some Jewish people don’t find it as offensive as I do, they are free not to side with me on this. But, since it would still be grossly offensive to me even if she weren’t being antisemitic, and is fits the general definition, my opinion isn’t going to change. And thus I support someone saying that being fired—especially as a last straw sort of thing.
I’m allowed to be the one offended. It doesn’t have to be on the behalf of others.