• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Gina Carano discussing Nazis, what am I missing here?

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Nobody cares if some no-name, unknown redneck spouts things 100x worse.

The problem occurs when people of fame do it on a platform where they reach millions of people.
Sure, perhaps she is just an uneducated dumb woman who doesn't know better.

That doesn't change the fact that she is a famous person with a reach of millions on a public platform like social media.
The fact is that people of fame with a big following have a big responsibility in terms of being role-models. And what they say (or don't say) reflects back on the circles they move in.

Famous people with a great following on the internet, have big power. And with power comes responsibility. Maybe she is dumb and ignorant. To me, that's not an excuse.
Being a person of fame with a voice that reaches millions, she has a responsibility to educate herself and to be careful what she does and doesn't say on such a platform.

Sure, she is free to say whatever she wants (within certain boundaries because free speech is off course not absolute).
Others are also free to judge her for it. And she must realize that as a public figure, what she does and doesn't say on social media can and WILL have consequences and potential backlash.

If you are famous and reach millions with your platform, then be careful what you post. When in doubt, best to simply not post anything at all.

It comes with the job. It's the price you pay for being famous and gathering "followers" on a platform like twitter.

If she can't handle that, then she should either quit social media or quit being famous.
Nobody is going to care about her statements when she works at McDonalds flipping burgers with 23 followers on her twitter account.

So, it's only a matter of how much of a following they have? I'm not sure I see it that way. Even if it's a low level employee at McDonald's, if they say or do something outrageous, there might be pressure on McDonald's to fire them. It's not something that only happens to famous people, although social media has made a lot of nobodies into rather infamous people.

But to be honest, I wasn't even aware that Gina Carano existed before this incident. The outrage and subsequent termination of her employment was what made it into a much bigger deal. That brings them even more attention.

I also don't think that being famous on the internet gives people that much "power." I think that level of celebrity "power" is only reserved for a select few. The Beatles or Elvis might have had power, but the Cowsills or the Partridge Family - not so much, even if they were famous and had some measure of a public following. If someone is a superstar and a proven moneymaker, they're not going to throw them under the bus that easily. But for those who are more at the second or third tier, it's a different story.
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
I also don't think that being famous on the internet gives people that much "power." I think that level of celebrity "power" is only reserved for a select few. The Beatles or Elvis might have had power, but the Cowsills or the Partridge Family - not so much, even if they were famous and had some measure of a public following. If someone is a superstar and a proven moneymaker, they're not going to throw them under the bus that easily. But for those who are more at the second or third tier, it's a different story.
Well, some people believe that money equals power, and being famous is usually an indicator of a very economically successful career, so I can see why people would assume that superstar millionaires would have more power than your average supermarket cashier.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Sure, perhaps she is just an uneducated dumb woman who doesn't know better.
I doubt that gender plays a role here.
And she does have 4 years of college (psych major).
The problem isn't the various descriptions of her.
It's that she says things unacceptable in her chosen
field, ie, entertainment.
 

Lyndon

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
Premium Member
Well you've got to figure downplaying the holocaust and calling half of America Nazis isn't going to go over very well in Hollywood, she should have known better.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
While I think your assessment of Carano's intentions is correct, and if so, I disagree with her, this feels like an assault on free speech.
Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences.

She lost her job because she behaved like a jerk online. She wasn't imprisoned by the state for what she said. Freedom of speech is intact.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences.

She lost her job because she behaved like a jerk online. She wasn't imprisoned by the state for what she said. Freedom of speech is intact.

Intact so far. But the PC police are actively trying to impose "a chilling affect" on opinions they don't like. Let me ask you this, how is this situation much different than the Hollywood blacklisting that went on in the 50s?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Intact so far. But the PC police are actively trying to impose "a chilling affect" on opinions they don't like. Let me ask you this, how is this situation much different than the Hollywood blacklisting that went on in the 50s?
1950s blacklisting was also government driven.
And ferreting out commies was more aggressive.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
People are too damn touchy these days. They actually look for excuses to be offended. Even if you think it's distasteful, there is nothing about it that warrants being fired over it. However, this is obviously just a PR move by a greedy corporation. Same thing happened to James Gunn, and you can't possibly tell me that they didn't know what sort of person he was before they fired him. At this point, people in the public eye shouldn't even have social media because they could lose it all over a damn tweet.
 
Last edited:

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Intact so far. But the PC police are actively trying to impose "a chilling affect" on opinions they don't like.
They're not handing over their money for people, companies or products they don't like. What's the issue with that?

Do you think Gina Carano is entitled to viewership? Is she entitled to continued employment in Hollywood?

Actors' employment is precarious. An actor can lose their job through no fault of their own; why do you think someone who went out of their way to alienate her show's fan base should get some sort of special protection?

Let me ask you this, how is this situation much different than the Hollywood blacklisting that went on in the 50s?
Are you serious?

Do you really see yourself as some sort of martyr here?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
People are too damn touchy these days. They actually look for excuses to be offended. Even if you think it's distasteful, there is nothing about it that warrants being fired over it. However, this is obviously just a PR move by a greedy corporation. Same thing happened to James Gunn, and you can't possibly tell me that they didn't know what sort of person he was before they fired him. At this point, people in the public eye shouldn't even have social media because they could lose it all over a damn tweet.
My take: anyone who complains about how Gina Carano or James Gunn has been treated but didn't say a peep about the blacklisting of people like Rose McGowan, Mira Sorvino, or Ashley Judd isn't actually interested in fairness for actors.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
They're not handing over their money for people, companies or products they don't like. What's the issue with that?

Do you think Gina Carano is entitled to viewership? Is she entitled to continued employment in Hollywood?

Actors' employment is precarious. An actor can lose their job through no fault of their own; why do you think someone who went out of their way to alienate her show's fan base should get some sort of special protection?

strawman much?

Are you serious?

Do you really see yourself as some sort of martyr here?

Where on earth did THAT come from? You gotta help me connect a few dots here..

This isn't at all about me, this is about free speech. And please, let's skip the basics. I understand that there is no guarantee of platform and that there are consequences. But given the degree to which media is run by very few people, do we really want those few to be the arbiters of which views can get air time and which cannot?
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
This isn't at all about me, this is about free speech. And please, let's skip the basics. I understand that there is no guarantee of platform and that there are consequences. But given the degree to which media is run by very few people, do we really want those few to be the arbiters of which views can get air time and which cannot?
Air time is a limited resource. At some point, you have to figure out who gets how much of it. In a mature capitalist economic system like we have here in the West, this role typically falls to a number of large, concentrated corporations, typically controlled by private shareholders or singular private owners.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Air time is a limited resource. At some point, you have to figure out who gets how much of it. In a mature capitalist economic system like we have here in the West, this role typically falls to a number of large, concentrated corporations, typically controlled by private shareholders or singular private owners.

Yup, that's our situation. I just think it puts free speech at risk, and that's intolerable.
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
Yup, that's our situation. I just think it puts free speech at risk, and that's intolerable.
"Free speech", in the context of liberal capitalism, is the freedom of the capitalist owner of media to not have their business be censored by a government. Capitalists and private companies have all the freedom to decide who gets to speak how, for how long, and to whom, and under liberal capitalism, that's a sufficient amount of freedom for everyone.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
"Free speech", in the context of liberal capitalism, is the freedom of the capitalist owner of media to not have their business be censored by a government. Capitalists and private companies have all the freedom to decide who gets to speak how, for how long, and to whom, and under liberal capitalism, that's a sufficient amount of freedom for everyone.
In Ameristan (which is a capitalist country) one can express
offensive liberal opinions & offensive conservative opinions.
One need only pick a compatible venue. This is a freedom
not typically available in non-capitalist countries.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
"Free speech", in the context of liberal capitalism, is the freedom of the capitalist owner of media to not have their business be censored by a government. Capitalists and private companies have all the freedom to decide who gets to speak how, for how long, and to whom, and under liberal capitalism, that's a sufficient amount of freedom for everyone.

Of course, up to the last bit (bolded), in practice what you say is true. But the bolded bit is most certainly NOT true. It is - for the time being - sufficient for the oligarchs, but in the long run, it'll bite them in the keester too.

One question that recurs these days os how to consider the big social media players. I believe that they should be treated like public utilities and NOT allowed censorship powers beyond what the law allows.
 
Top