And by people complaining about it. I don’t think that anyone on this board has ever been cancelled, but I hear people on this board complaining about cancel culture on a pretty regular basis.
Is it not important that Gina was criticized, with calls for her to be fired, as she made the post? (The same happened to Roseanne Barr.) James Gunn was criticized and ultimately fired for social media posts he’d made a decade before. I’d think that should be considered a major difference between the cases.
(Gunn’s defense was that he was a different person when he’d made those remarks, and they didn’t represent who he was anymore. That’s plausible after 10 years, not so plausible after 10 minutes.)
I refer you to my definitions from the previous topic you started on cancel culture.
Conservatives complain about the latter type. The equivalent with respect to sanctions on Russia would be to sanction countries who have not sanctioned Russia - that would be the sort of cancel culture the American right whines about.
~Max
Gunn also apologized for the jokes he made in bad taste. Carano doubled down.
Details! 
Putin is the cancel culture poster child.
I did a cursory search of what Gina posted:
- Some comments about stopping voter fraud
- Putting “Beep/Bop/Boop” as her preferred pronouns as a joke.
- “Jews were beaten in the streets, not by Nazi soldiers but by their neighbors…even by children. Because history is edited, most people today don’t realize that to get to the point where Nazi soldiers could easily round up thousands of Jews, the government first made their own neighbors hate them simply for being Jews. How is that any different from hating someone for their political views?”
I guess even as a Jewish person, I don’t really see what she said as particularly offensive. But it is clearly very Conservative.
Gunn OTOH made a bunch of posts about pedophilia, rape, the Holocaust, and referenced his privates a lot.
The main difference I see is that Gunn identifies as “liberal” and the Guardians films made over $1.5 billion globally under his direction. Gina Carano OTOH can easily have her role replaced by Ronda Rousey or…whoever.
Consequence culture.
Didn’t he get “uncancelled”? He’s having no problems finding work. Hardly a victim of cancel culture.
Although I liked the Of Course Putin Is Being Canceled article previously linked by roger_that, what is happening to Putin isn’t cancel culture, just cancelling. Cancel culture
Implies excessive cancelling. Refusing to work with or host classical music artists, who are obeying authoritarian Russian speech laws, is cancel culture because it is, in my personal view, illiberal and excessive.
Sanctions are an overused form of attempted cancellation, as progressives will often agree when it comes to Cuba. Most, not all, of the sanctions against Russia are troubling because they are collective punishment. Such sanctions should be lifted as soon as they either work, or clearly aren’t working.
The phrase cancel culture is predominantly used by conservatives, even though people are often cancelled by right-wing institutions. Who uses it shouldn’t be used to judge a concept like the phrase cancel culture, IMHO, but, obviously, many disagree with that.
He was hired back on because he apologized and pointed out that the language he was criticized for was old, and he’d changed in the decade since.
He was absolutely a victim, because he was fired. It was an attempt by the right to bring him down (right wing pundits did the digging). But in his case it didn’t stick.
LOL. You completely ignored everything you said and just doubled down. The reason that’s the only difference “you see” is because you only see what you want to. Your failure to address any of my points is pretty telling.
Here’s an article about why she was fired, though I don’t expect you to read it. It’s even longer than my post you didn’t read.
The country seems to support Putin – most notably, the really rich guys who do a lot of string-pulling. The rest of the world is casting a vote relative to Putin, asking the country to stop supporting him. This may be a bad strategy inasmuch as it could result in the put-upon citizenry closing ranks, becoming even more supportive. This is especially a problem when the Big K has clamped down on what can be said and set a 15 year sentence for any anti-war protests, hence making it that much more difficult for citizens of good conscience to gain any traction and ends up spreading an internal sense of a nation backing him.
So, if the sanctions are impacting Russians, what? Do you suggest that they be lifted, so that Vlad is free to proceed, unhindered? His army is killing civilians in what appear to be rater loathesome ways, yet, you suggest that the people of Russia should be allowed to just go on with their lives as if it was no big deal? As if we did not care?
In the end, this is a genuine kobiyashi maru. There appears to be no correct course. If only we still had Individual-ONE in the WhiteHouse, because then there would be no talk of sanctions, and this enterprise would have been finished by now.
I suggested lifting them if they aren’t hindering him.
Here is another kind of argument for willingness to lift sanctions sooner rather than later:
The Ukraine Dilemma: Can the West Save Kyiv Without Starting a War With Russia?
Another significant difference is that Gunn’s posts were actually part of his job. He was working at Adult Swim at the time, and they wanted their creatives to maintain social media presences and engage in “edgy” humor as part of the Adult Swim brand. No one complained at the time, and when they were resurfaced years later, he apologized, and never engaged in the behavior again. Carano wasn’t posting as part of her job, and when her posts started generating immediate controversy, Disney told her to stop - and she didn’t.
I’ll try to simplify it.
Let’s say you have two friends, Gina and James.
A third friend texts you and says, “I hate to break it to you, but both of them have said nasty things about you.”
You get screenshots of James saying nasty things about you. Awful things. Bad jokes at your expense that were really tasteless and hurtful. They are really old.
You also receive screenshots of Gina saying some nasty things about you too. She just posted them.
You’d be hurt and would be tempted to cut ties with them.
Now let’s say James says, “I’m sorry. I was a jerk. That was 10 years ago, I’m a different person and would never say anything like that now. I don’t believe those things about you and didn’t even really believe them then; I was trying to be edgy and get attention. I was a jerk and I’m sorry I hurt you.”
Gina says, “I stand by what I said. That’s my opinion and I refuse to apologize. I’ll do it again, this is who I am, and if you don’t like it, tough.”
Based on those statements you forgive James and never talk to Gina again. Does this sound like it’s purely a political issue?!
Yes, please simplify it with your needlessly complicated and inane metaphor.
First of all, neither person is saying things about “me”. They are saying things that are stupid and possibly political.
Second, they aren’t my “friends”. They are entertainers who produce works I enjoy (more James than Gina).
@Miller has it correct. Gunn’s posts were from a decade ago before he joined the Disney/MCU team. Gina was presently violating whatever agreement she had with Disney. So IMHO it’s less about “feelings” as it is about retroactively applying an agreement you made with an employer.
@Roger_That is correct that it’s “cancel culture” if you like the person being cancelled, Otherwise it’s just good for the sonofabitch. Except that it works both ways. The fact that we are even debating stupid posts someone made a decade ago tells me “cancel culture” is a thing that can often be unreasonable.
Of course non of this has to do with Putin. I mean if you can’t cancel someone for blowing up maternity wards and schools, who can you cancel?
So we’ve located a sonofabitch we can all agree upon?
My point ms up until now, which you’ve ignored, let me add, have been twofold.
Gunn’s posts were a decade old, and Carano’s were new.
Gunn was apologetic. Carano doubled-down.
That was the difference. Your ridiculous assertion that it was all political was willful ignorance. Ignorance is what this site is trying to fight.
It’s an attempt to rephrase it in a personal way, so that you can see the difference. Which isn’t political.
I’m still not sure you get it.
One odd thing about Gunn’s firing is the fact that, almost before the ink was dry on the Disney/Fox deal, they rehired Gunn for GotG 3. This, along with the fact that a handful of other outspoken liberals (comic book author Chuck Wendig, in particular) working on Disney projects got fired or had projects unexpectedly cancelled at the same time Gunn was fired, has led to some speculation that Gunn’s firing was explicitly political, and done to somehow grease the wheels on the Fox deal. Ike Perlmutter, a notorious racist* and Trump goon who was chairman of Marvel comics before the Disney take over, and later CEO of Marvel Entertainment, might have been involved. Perlmutter had stepped down as CEO a couple years before Gunn’s firing, but reportedly still had control over some parts of the company. Marvel’s Head of Television, Jeph Loeb was still reporting directly to him up until 2019, when they both left the company after the television division was placed under Kevin Feige - coincidentally, also around the time that Gunn was rehired for GotG 3.
I think it’s also useful to differentiate between the firing of people, and cancel culture.
Yes, they are inextricably entwined, of course. Firing someone because they said or did something objectionable is a public relations move. And when someone is being canceled by the public, that is a classic example of a PR nightmare. If you think Gunn or Carano are toxic, and will boycott something they’re involved with, that person is poison.
But while they are linked, they aren’t the same. I was addressing the public’s opinion of the two, rather than the reasons why Disney chose to fire them (and subsequently rehire Gunn). I don’t really know if the firings were a direct result of the public backlash, or were the result of a contract violation (such as an ethics clause, or whatever you’d call it), or the bad PR was just the excuse they needed to cut ties with someone they no longer wanted to work with.
It seems that in both cases, there was a great amount of public criticism. That never went away for Carano, and it did seem to go away for Gunn. I attribute that to the apology, or lack thereof, and whether the offensive comments were recent or not.
At no point would politics (liberal/conservative) have anything to do with it. That’s silly. Both made comments offensive to left-leaning people. If Gunn is considered a person who is on the political left, that would make it even worse for him. Carano never pretended to be anything other than what she was; I don’t recall any attempts from her to cater to people on the left. For Gunn to be revealed as a bigot, that’s a betrayal. So if this was all about politics, Gunn’s name would be mud. It wasn’t about politics though. Gunn has the distance of time from his comments, and showed contrition. Neither of those is true for Carano. That’s pretty simple.