On Feb 13, 2021 at 2:17:05 PM PST, "FPP" <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2/13/21 10:29 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>> moviePig
>>>> BTR1701
>>>>
>>>> And... that's it? That's the full depth and breadth of what
>>>> conservatives are allowed to say online without risking their
>>>> livelihoods?
>>>
>>> When you use your employer as a platform, you can expect your
>>> employer (a self-interested entity) to take note. She hasn't lost her
>>> right to speak her mind online, she just can't do it wearing mouse
>>> ears.
>>
>> And yet we were endlessly harangued by the media that Colin Kaepernick
>> had some kinda “right” hold protests while on company time, in company
>> uniform and on company property, effectively strong-arming the NFL into
>> supporting and promoting his personal political agenda.
>>
>> Meanwhile, Gina Carano was not "wearing mouse ears" when she made
>> her comments, that had nothing to do with the company she worked for
>> and were done on her own time.
>>
>> Are you immune to hypocrisy?
>>
>
> Again... NFL has a contract that permits it. C O N T R A C T.
> Carano has a history of shit-talking. If she has a contract that
> permits it, Disney will pay.
>
> But she has no such 'right' to work where they don't tolerate shit talking.

And yet her co-star Pedro Pascal talked the exact same shit-talk in public,
and was not only NOT fired for it, he was praised by the Left.

Same shit-post, same show, same company. One fired, the other lionized.

Make it make sense without acknowledging Carano was fired for not being a
Leftist.

On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 03:08:44 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>On Feb 13, 2021 at 2:17:05 PM PST, "FPP" <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/13/21 10:29 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>> moviePig
>>>>> BTR1701
>>>>>
>>>>> And... that's it? That's the full depth and breadth of what
>>>>> conservatives are allowed to say online without risking their
>>>>> livelihoods?
>>>>
>>>> When you use your employer as a platform, you can expect your
>>>> employer (a self-interested entity) to take note. She hasn't lost her
>>>> right to speak her mind online, she just can't do it wearing mouse
>>>> ears.
>>>
>>> And yet we were endlessly harangued by the media that Colin Kaepernick
>>> had some kinda “right” hold protests while on company time, in company
>>> uniform and on company property, effectively strong-arming the NFL into
>>> supporting and promoting his personal political agenda.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, Gina Carano was not "wearing mouse ears" when she made
>>> her comments, that had nothing to do with the company she worked for
>>> and were done on her own time.
>>>
>>> Are you immune to hypocrisy?
>>>
>>
>> Again... NFL has a contract that permits it. C O N T R A C T.
>> Carano has a history of shit-talking. If she has a contract that
>> permits it, Disney will pay.
>>
>> But she has no such 'right' to work where they don't tolerate shit talking.
>
>And yet her co-star Pedro Pascal talked the exact same shit-talk in public,
>and was not only NOT fired for it, he was praised by the Left.
>
>Same shit-post, same show, same company. One fired, the other lionized.
>
>Make it make sense without acknowledging Carano was fired for not being a
>Leftist.

It wasn't that she was not a Leftist, but that rightly or wrongly she
was seen as saying much more controversial statements. Such as that
one tweet she made that seemed to be equating the political fighting
to Nazism. Which we all know never goes well since it breaks Godwin's
law (or at least a related law.)

Though the real problem seems to be that she said such things that
were taken as offensive and when told to stop she didn't. My
understanding is that there was another actress that said similar
things and got into trouble, but when she was told to stop she did and
still kept working. As for Pedro Pascal his comments were not seen as
offensive because his political comments were in support of things
like BLM and LBGTQ.

So fundamentally Carano got fired because she wouldn't stop posting
things the company found damaging to their image when they told her to
do so.

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>Thu, 08 Feb 2024 03:08:44 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>:
>>On Feb 13, 2021 at 2:17:05 PM PST, FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On 2/13/21 10:29 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:

>>>>>moviePig
>>>>>>BTR1701

>>>>>>And... that's it? That's the full depth and breadth of what
>>>>>>conservatives are allowed to say online without risking their
>>>>>>livelihoods?

>>>>>When you use your employer as a platform, you can expect your
>>>>>employer (a self-interested entity) to take note. She hasn't lost her
>>>>>right to speak her mind online, she just can't do it wearing mouse
>>>>>ears.

>>>>And yet we were endlessly harangued by the media that Colin Kaepernick
>>>>had some kinda “right” hold protests while on company time, in company
>>>>uniform and on company property, effectively strong-arming the NFL into
>>>>supporting and promoting his personal political agenda.

>>>>Meanwhile, Gina Carano was not "wearing mouse ears" when she made
>>>>her comments, that had nothing to do with the company she worked for
>>>>and were done on her own time.

>>>>Are you immune to hypocrisy?

>>>Again... NFL has a contract that permits it. C O N T R A C T.
>>>Carano has a history of shit-talking. If she has a contract that
>>>permits it, Disney will pay.

>>>But she has no such 'right' to work where they don't tolerate shit talking.

>>And yet her co-star Pedro Pascal talked the exact same shit-talk in public,
>>and was not only NOT fired for it, he was praised by the Left.

>>Same shit-post, same show, same company. One fired, the other lionized.

I never read anything about him. What had he said?

>>Make it make sense without acknowledging Carano was fired for not being a
>>Leftist.

>It wasn't that she was not a Leftist, but that rightly or wrongly she
>was seen as saying much more controversial statements.

By whom, shawn? To whom were the statements controversial? Her
corporate bosses disagreed; she got fired. Of course that's a political
reason and not a business reason, which is why Pascal wasn't fired.

This thread is three years old. Way back when, in one of the followups,
you admitted that you couldn't see that there was a business case to be
made. So all that leaves us is that she was fired for political reasons.

With at will employment, that's not disallowed. The employee has no
right to keep his job having made political comments that offended his boss.

She's not an at will employee but we don't know what's in her contract.

>Such as that one tweet she made that seemed to be equating the political
>fighting to Nazism. Which we all know never goes well since it breaks
>Godwin's law (or at least a related law.)

She thought better of it almost immediately and withdrew it. Her
detractors were the ones who quoted it all over the place.

>Though the real problem seems to be that she said such things that
>were taken as offensive and when told to stop she didn't. My
>understanding is that there was another actress that said similar
>things and got into trouble, but when she was told to stop she did and
>still kept working. As for Pedro Pascal his comments were not seen as
>offensive because his political comments were in support of things
>like BLM and LBGTQ.

What were they so I can take offense or not?

>So fundamentally Carano got fired because she wouldn't stop posting
>things the company found damaging to their image when they told her to
>do so.

I wasn't aware that Disney's corporate image was damaged. Three years
ago, again, you agreed that there was no business case here.

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 06:57:04 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>Thu, 08 Feb 2024 03:08:44 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>:
>>>On Feb 13, 2021 at 2:17:05 PM PST, FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On 2/13/21 10:29 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>
>>>>>>moviePig
>>>>>>>BTR1701
>
>>>>>>>And... that's it? That's the full depth and breadth of what
>>>>>>>conservatives are allowed to say online without risking their
>>>>>>>livelihoods?
>
>>>>>>When you use your employer as a platform, you can expect your
>>>>>>employer (a self-interested entity) to take note. She hasn't lost her
>>>>>>right to speak her mind online, she just can't do it wearing mouse
>>>>>>ears.
>
>>>>>And yet we were endlessly harangued by the media that Colin Kaepernick
>>>>>had some kinda “right” hold protests while on company time, in company
>>>>>uniform and on company property, effectively strong-arming the NFL into
>>>>>supporting and promoting his personal political agenda.
>
>>>>>Meanwhile, Gina Carano was not "wearing mouse ears" when she made
>>>>>her comments, that had nothing to do with the company she worked for
>>>>>and were done on her own time.
>
>>>>>Are you immune to hypocrisy?
>
>>>>Again... NFL has a contract that permits it. C O N T R A C T.
>>>>Carano has a history of shit-talking. If she has a contract that
>>>>permits it, Disney will pay.
>
>>>>But she has no such 'right' to work where they don't tolerate shit talking.
>
>>>And yet her co-star Pedro Pascal talked the exact same shit-talk in public,
>>>and was not only NOT fired for it, he was praised by the Left.
>
>>>Same shit-post, same show, same company. One fired, the other lionized.
>
>I never read anything about him. What had he said?
>
>>>Make it make sense without acknowledging Carano was fired for not being a
>>>Leftist.
>
>>It wasn't that she was not a Leftist, but that rightly or wrongly she
>>was seen as saying much more controversial statements.
>
>By whom, shawn? To whom were the statements controversial? Her
>corporate bosses disagreed; she got fired. Of course that's a political
>reason and not a business reason, which is why Pascal wasn't fired.

That's your take. Mine is that there were numerous takes on social
media that her statements were controversial and so it's entirely
possible that Disney looked at the situation and saw it as potentially
hurting their business and so cut ties with her.

>This thread is three years old. Way back when, in one of the followups,
>you admitted that you couldn't see that there was a business case to be
>made. So all that leaves us is that she was fired for political reasons.

I don't believe you because even at the time it was clear that there
was an uproar over her statements which gave Disney reason to want to
cut ties with her. Business reasons even if the uproar might have had
more to do with the public's response to her political statements.
Though as I stated in my other post there were numerous responses back
at that time to her series of posts bringing up the whole Nazi issue.
Something where she may have spoken in artfully but it certainly fired
up a number of people and got much of social media talking. Which is
almost certainly what helped get the Disney execs attention.

>With at will employment, that's not disallowed. The employee has no
>right to keep his job having made political comments that offended his boss.
>
>She's not an at will employee but we don't know what's in her contract.

Yeah, all that we know was that a huge company with lots of lawyers
thought they could just cut her loose. So while we don't know what was
in her contract it does seem likely that there was something that
allowed Disney to just let her go.

>>Such as that one tweet she made that seemed to be equating the political
>>fighting to Nazism. Which we all know never goes well since it breaks
>>Godwin's law (or at least a related law.)
>
>She thought better of it almost immediately and withdrew it. Her
>detractors were the ones who quoted it all over the place.

That's the Internet for you. Make one controversial statement and it
can live on forever despite your best efforts. At least if you are
posting in the USA.

>>Though the real problem seems to be that she said such things that
>>were taken as offensive and when told to stop she didn't. My
>>understanding is that there was another actress that said similar
>>things and got into trouble, but when she was told to stop she did and
>>still kept working. As for Pedro Pascal his comments were not seen as
>>offensive because his political comments were in support of things
>>like BLM and LBGTQ.
>
>What were they so I can take offense or not?
>
>>So fundamentally Carano got fired because she wouldn't stop posting
>>things the company found damaging to their image when they told her to
>>do so.
>

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>Thu, 8 Feb 2024 06:57:04 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>Thu, 08 Feb 2024 03:08:44 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>:
>>>>On Feb 13, 2021 at 2:17:05 PM PST, FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>On 2/13/21 10:29 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:

>>>>>>>moviePig
>>>>>>>>BTR1701

>>>>>>>>And... that's it? That's the full depth and breadth of what
>>>>>>>>conservatives are allowed to say online without risking their
>>>>>>>>livelihoods?

>>>>>>>When you use your employer as a platform, you can expect your
>>>>>>>employer (a self-interested entity) to take note. She hasn't lost her
>>>>>>>right to speak her mind online, she just can't do it wearing mouse
>>>>>>>ears.

>>>>>>And yet we were endlessly harangued by the media that Colin Kaepernick
>>>>>>had some kinda right hold protests while on company time, in company
>>>>>>uniform and on company property, effectively strong-arming the NFL into
>>>>>>supporting and promoting his personal political agenda.

>>>>>>Meanwhile, Gina Carano was not "wearing mouse ears" when she made
>>>>>>her comments, that had nothing to do with the company she worked for
>>>>>>and were done on her own time.

>>>>>>Are you immune to hypocrisy?

>>>>>Again... NFL has a contract that permits it. C O N T R A C T.
>>>>>Carano has a history of shit-talking. If she has a contract that
>>>>>permits it, Disney will pay.

>>>>>But she has no such 'right' to work where they don't tolerate shit
>>>>>talking.

>>>>And yet her co-star Pedro Pascal talked the exact same shit-talk in public,
>>>>and was not only NOT fired for it, he was praised by the Left.

>>>>Same shit-post, same show, same company. One fired, the other lionized.

>>I never read anything about him. What had he said?

>>>>Make it make sense without acknowledging Carano was fired for not being a
>>>>Leftist.

>>>It wasn't that she was not a Leftist, but that rightly or wrongly she
>>>was seen as saying much more controversial statements.

>>By whom, shawn? To whom were the statements controversial? Her
>>corporate bosses disagreed; she got fired. Of course that's a political
>>reason and not a business reason, which is why Pascal wasn't fired.

>That's your take. Mine is that there were numerous takes on social
>media that her statements were controversial and so it's entirely
>possible that Disney looked at the situation and saw it as potentially
>hurting their business and so cut ties with her.

Give me a break. If the statements were controversial, then they were
controversial to people who disagreed with her. That's politics. That's
not business.

In three years, there's no evidence that keeping her would have lost
viewers or firing her gained viewers. All we have is Disney's claim,
still without evidence, that their image was hurt by her comments
despite the fact that she never attributed the comments to her corporate
master. I'd say by firing her and therefore calling maximum attention to
this, Disney hurt its own reputation far more than she could have.

>>This thread is three years old. Way back when, in one of the followups,
>>you admitted that you couldn't see that there was a business case to be
>>made. So all that leaves us is that she was fired for political reasons.

>I don't believe you because even at the time it was clear that there
>was an uproar over her statements which gave Disney reason to want to
>cut ties with her. Business reasons even if the uproar might have had
>more to do with the public's response to her political statements.
>Though as I stated in my other post there were numerous responses back
>at that time to her series of posts bringing up the whole Nazi issue.
>Something where she may have spoken in artfully but it certainly fired
>up a number of people and got much of social media talking. Which is
>almost certainly what helped get the Disney execs attention.

No, after several rounds, you got a little more reasonable.

From: shawn <nanoflower@notforgmail.com>
Message-ID: <7vge2glen078434tetreoc5d162ke00f9i@4ax.com>

Adam wrote:

>That's fine. Would you at least condemn Hollywood for specious
>business practices?

Sure. While I didn't think she thought through the consequences
of her posts I don't have an issue with her making them. So I
thought Disney over-reacted but then I don't know what went on
behind the scenes. Maybe someone had spoken to Carano asking her
to tone down her social media comments and she made it clear she
wasn't going to do that so this was Disney's next step. Certainly
she's making it clear now that she's not going to be quiet given
her latest comments.

I'm always left wondering just how much of an issue these social
media kerfluffles really are for companies. Is it the sort of
thing where while there may seem to be a big group involved it's
really just an extremely noisy group and if the companies were
willing to wait it out the group would eventually find something
else to complain about. Meanwhile most people are just going
about their lives and not really concerned about the issues.

Certainly that's been my take as I try to separate what people are
doing in their personal lives from what happens on the screen.
So while I can't in any way support what Harvey Weinstein has
been accused of I'm not about to let his involvement in a number
of film productions prevent me from enjoying them.

>>With at will employment, that's not disallowed. The employee has no
>>right to keep his job having made political comments that offended his boss.

>>She's not an at will employee but we don't know what's in her contract.

>Yeah, all that we know was that a huge company with lots of lawyers
>thought they could just cut her loose. So while we don't know what was
>in her contract it does seem likely that there was something that
>allowed Disney to just let her go.

No. It's Disney. Contracts don't matter. They have more money for
lawyers than you do so there's no possible way to beat them. It makes no
difference if both the facts and the law are on your side. Even if you
win in court, your legal fees are unaffordable and it's unlikely they
can be forced to pay them.

>>>. . .

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 08:15:48 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>Thu, 8 Feb 2024 06:57:04 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>>shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>Thu, 08 Feb 2024 03:08:44 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>:
>>>>>On Feb 13, 2021 at 2:17:05 PM PST, FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On 2/13/21 10:29 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>moviePig
>>>>>>>>>BTR1701
>
>>>>>>>>>And... that's it? That's the full depth and breadth of what
>>>>>>>>>conservatives are allowed to say online without risking their
>>>>>>>>>livelihoods?
>
>>>>>>>>When you use your employer as a platform, you can expect your
>>>>>>>>employer (a self-interested entity) to take note. She hasn't lost her
>>>>>>>>right to speak her mind online, she just can't do it wearing mouse
>>>>>>>>ears.
>
>>>>>>>And yet we were endlessly harangued by the media that Colin Kaepernick
>>>>>>>had some kinda right hold protests while on company time, in company
>>>>>>>uniform and on company property, effectively strong-arming the NFL into
>>>>>>>supporting and promoting his personal political agenda.
>
>>>>>>>Meanwhile, Gina Carano was not "wearing mouse ears" when she made
>>>>>>>her comments, that had nothing to do with the company she worked for
>>>>>>>and were done on her own time.
>
>>>>>>>Are you immune to hypocrisy?
>
>>>>>>Again... NFL has a contract that permits it. C O N T R A C T.
>>>>>>Carano has a history of shit-talking. If she has a contract that
>>>>>>permits it, Disney will pay.
>
>>>>>>But she has no such 'right' to work where they don't tolerate shit
>>>>>>talking.
>
>>>>>And yet her co-star Pedro Pascal talked the exact same shit-talk in public,
>>>>>and was not only NOT fired for it, he was praised by the Left.
>
>>>>>Same shit-post, same show, same company. One fired, the other lionized.
>
>>>I never read anything about him. What had he said?
>
>>>>>Make it make sense without acknowledging Carano was fired for not being a
>>>>>Leftist.
>
>>>>It wasn't that she was not a Leftist, but that rightly or wrongly she
>>>>was seen as saying much more controversial statements.
>
>>>By whom, shawn? To whom were the statements controversial? Her
>>>corporate bosses disagreed; she got fired. Of course that's a political
>>>reason and not a business reason, which is why Pascal wasn't fired.
>
>>That's your take. Mine is that there were numerous takes on social
>>media that her statements were controversial and so it's entirely
>>possible that Disney looked at the situation and saw it as potentially
>>hurting their business and so cut ties with her.
>
>Give me a break. If the statements were controversial, then they were
>controversial to people who disagreed with her. That's politics. That's
>not business.

I don't get your thinking. If something is thought to be controversial
then it's likely to hurt the business. Given the situation we have now
it is clear that these social issues can hurt a company. Look at what
happened with Budweiser. That's a clear case where the company was
hurt by a controversy. Admittedly one they created themselves.

Then there was the choice Disney made to cut ties with Jonathan
Majors. Another decision that was clearly made on a business basis. Of
course the situation with him was much more clear cut given the
accusations against him, and Disney stood by him much longer than they
did with Carano. Though they apparently had already filmed enough and
had plans in place for Kang that would have made it very expensive to
have cut ties earlier. If Carano had been in the same situation (being
a major character in existing shows and planned movies) it's likely
she wouldn't have been cut loose so quickly. Again, a business
decision.

I get that you see it differently and I think we are just going to
have to agree to disagree as I think they made a decision based a
business evaluation and you see it otherwise. So be it.

>
>In three years, there's no evidence that keeping her would have lost
>viewers or firing her gained viewers. All we have is Disney's claim,
>still without evidence, that their image was hurt by her comments
>despite the fact that she never attributed the comments to her corporate
>master. I'd say by firing her and therefore calling maximum attention to
>this, Disney hurt its own reputation far more than she could have.

That may or may not be the case. I don't think there's any way for us
to know whether her actions would have hurt the Disney image. They are
certainly over protective of that image, in my estimation and I agree
that they called more attention to the issue by letting her go. What
they probably should have done is continue to use her for the duration
of the existing contract and then not use her in the future. That way
there's really no controversy for people to discuss as characters are
dropped all the time in on going shows.

>>>With at will employment, that's not disallowed. The employee has no
>>>right to keep his job having made political comments that offended his boss.
>
>>>She's not an at will employee but we don't know what's in her contract.
>
>>Yeah, all that we know was that a huge company with lots of lawyers
>>thought they could just cut her loose. So while we don't know what was
>>in her contract it does seem likely that there was something that
>>allowed Disney to just let her go.
>
>No. It's Disney. Contracts don't matter. They have more money for
>lawyers than you do so there's no possible way to beat them. It makes no
>difference if both the facts and the law are on your side. Even if you
>win in court, your legal fees are unaffordable and it's unlikely they
>can be forced to pay them.

I get what you are saying but she was already going up against them
with her court case and now has a billionaire supporting her. Just how
much money Musk is willing to put into this is unknown, but I'm sure
he's going to use his social media presence to continue to try and
hurt Disney.

In that sense he reminds me of Trump. When hurt they both are more
than willing to strike back using all of their resources. Even when
the slight could have been ignored since they didn't suffer any
significant harm.

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>Thu, 8 Feb 2024 08:15:48 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>Thu, 8 Feb 2024 06:57:04 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>>>shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>>Thu, 08 Feb 2024 03:08:44 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>:
>>>>>>On Feb 13, 2021 at 2:17:05 PM PST, FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>On 2/13/21 10:29 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:

>>>>>>>>>moviePig
>>>>>>>>>>BTR1701

>>>>>>>>>>And... that's it? That's the full depth and breadth of what
>>>>>>>>>>conservatives are allowed to say online without risking their
>>>>>>>>>>livelihoods?

>>>>>>>>>When you use your employer as a platform, you can expect your
>>>>>>>>>employer (a self-interested entity) to take note. She hasn't lost her
>>>>>>>>>right to speak her mind online, she just can't do it wearing mouse
>>>>>>>>>ears.

>>>>>>>>And yet we were endlessly harangued by the media that Colin Kaepernick
>>>>>>>>had some kinda right hold protests while on company time, in company
>>>>>>>>uniform and on company property, effectively strong-arming the NFL into
>>>>>>>>supporting and promoting his personal political agenda.

>>>>>>>>Meanwhile, Gina Carano was not "wearing mouse ears" when she made
>>>>>>>>her comments, that had nothing to do with the company she worked for
>>>>>>>>and were done on her own time.

>>>>>>>>Are you immune to hypocrisy?

>>>>>>>Again... NFL has a contract that permits it. C O N T R A C T.
>>>>>>>Carano has a history of shit-talking. If she has a contract that
>>>>>>>permits it, Disney will pay.

>>>>>>>But she has no such 'right' to work where they don't tolerate shit
>>>>>>>talking.

>>>>>>And yet her co-star Pedro Pascal talked the exact same shit-talk
>>>>>>in public, and was not only NOT fired for it, he was praised by
>>>>>>the Left.

>>>>>>Same shit-post, same show, same company. One fired, the other lionized.

>>>>I never read anything about him. What had he said?

>>>>>>Make it make sense without acknowledging Carano was fired for not
>>>>>>being a Leftist.

>>>>>It wasn't that she was not a Leftist, but that rightly or wrongly she
>>>>>was seen as saying much more controversial statements.

>>>>By whom, shawn? To whom were the statements controversial? Her
>>>>corporate bosses disagreed; she got fired. Of course that's a political
>>>>reason and not a business reason, which is why Pascal wasn't fired.

>>>That's your take. Mine is that there were numerous takes on social
>>>media that her statements were controversial and so it's entirely
>>>possible that Disney looked at the situation and saw it as potentially
>>>hurting their business and so cut ties with her.

>>Give me a break. If the statements were controversial, then they were
>>controversial to people who disagreed with her. That's politics. That's
>>not business.

>I don't get your thinking. If something is thought to be controversial
>then it's likely to hurt the business. Given the situation we have now
>it is clear that these social issues can hurt a company. Look at what
>happened with Budweiser. That's a clear case where the company was
>hurt by a controversy. Admittedly one they created themselves.

That was a poorly conceived advertising campaign that had everything to
do with the personal politics of the corporate brand manager and nothing
to do with doing her job of promoting a long-established brand. She
murdered the brand.

Gina Carano wasn't advertising. It might be argued that her job is self
promotion and hurt her own brand by limiting its appeal to Trump
supporters. But if I had to think about every actor's stupid opinions,
I'd be unable to watch tv. I assume they are all stupid.

I've said it before. I've always admired James Garner who never ever
used his celebrity to promote a political cause.

>Then there was the choice Disney made to cut ties with Jonathan Majors.

shawn, you are comparing a violent criminal to someone who expressed
some stupid opinion. He literally harmed girlfriends, then begged them
to cover it up so he wouldn't lose his career.

>. . .

>I get that you see it differently and I think we are just going to
>have to agree to disagree as I think they made a decision based a
>business evaluation and you see it otherwise. So be it.

>. . .

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 08:57:01 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>Thu, 8 Feb 2024 08:15:48 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>>shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>Thu, 8 Feb 2024 06:57:04 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>>>>shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>>>Thu, 08 Feb 2024 03:08:44 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>:
>>>>>>>On Feb 13, 2021 at 2:17:05 PM PST, FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>On 2/13/21 10:29 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>moviePig
>>>>>>>>>>>BTR1701
>
>>>>>>>>>>>And... that's it? That's the full depth and breadth of what
>>>>>>>>>>>conservatives are allowed to say online without risking their
>>>>>>>>>>>livelihoods?
>
>>>>>>>>>>When you use your employer as a platform, you can expect your
>>>>>>>>>>employer (a self-interested entity) to take note. She hasn't lost her
>>>>>>>>>>right to speak her mind online, she just can't do it wearing mouse
>>>>>>>>>>ears.
>
>>>>>>>>>And yet we were endlessly harangued by the media that Colin Kaepernick
>>>>>>>>>had some kinda right hold protests while on company time, in company
>>>>>>>>>uniform and on company property, effectively strong-arming the NFL into
>>>>>>>>>supporting and promoting his personal political agenda.
>
>>>>>>>>>Meanwhile, Gina Carano was not "wearing mouse ears" when she made
>>>>>>>>>her comments, that had nothing to do with the company she worked for
>>>>>>>>>and were done on her own time.
>
>>>>>>>>>Are you immune to hypocrisy?
>
>>>>>>>>Again... NFL has a contract that permits it. C O N T R A C T.
>>>>>>>>Carano has a history of shit-talking. If she has a contract that
>>>>>>>>permits it, Disney will pay.
>
>>>>>>>>But she has no such 'right' to work where they don't tolerate shit
>>>>>>>>talking.
>
>>>>>>>And yet her co-star Pedro Pascal talked the exact same shit-talk
>>>>>>>in public, and was not only NOT fired for it, he was praised by
>>>>>>>the Left.
>
>>>>>>>Same shit-post, same show, same company. One fired, the other lionized.
>
>>>>>I never read anything about him. What had he said?
>
>>>>>>>Make it make sense without acknowledging Carano was fired for not
>>>>>>>being a Leftist.
>
>>>>>>It wasn't that she was not a Leftist, but that rightly or wrongly she
>>>>>>was seen as saying much more controversial statements.
>
>>>>>By whom, shawn? To whom were the statements controversial? Her
>>>>>corporate bosses disagreed; she got fired. Of course that's a political
>>>>>reason and not a business reason, which is why Pascal wasn't fired.
>
>>>>That's your take. Mine is that there were numerous takes on social
>>>>media that her statements were controversial and so it's entirely
>>>>possible that Disney looked at the situation and saw it as potentially
>>>>hurting their business and so cut ties with her.
>
>>>Give me a break. If the statements were controversial, then they were
>>>controversial to people who disagreed with her. That's politics. That's
>>>not business.
>
>>I don't get your thinking. If something is thought to be controversial
>>then it's likely to hurt the business. Given the situation we have now
>>it is clear that these social issues can hurt a company. Look at what
>>happened with Budweiser. That's a clear case where the company was
>>hurt by a controversy. Admittedly one they created themselves.
>
>That was a poorly conceived advertising campaign that had everything to
>do with the personal politics of the corporate brand manager and nothing
>to do with doing her job of promoting a long-established brand. She
>murdered the brand.
>
>Gina Carano wasn't advertising. It might be argued that her job is self
>promotion and hurt her own brand by limiting its appeal to Trump
>supporters. But if I had to think about every actor's stupid opinions,
>I'd be unable to watch tv. I assume they are all stupid.
>
>I've said it before. I've always admired James Garner who never ever
>used his celebrity to promote a political cause.
>
>>Then there was the choice Disney made to cut ties with Jonathan Majors.
>
>shawn, you are comparing a violent criminal to someone who expressed
>some stupid opinion. He literally harmed girlfriends, then begged them
>to cover it up so he wouldn't lose his career.

Unsurprisingly you cut out my next sentence where I pointed out that
the Majors case was much more serious. Though they were similar in
that both seemed related to Disney fearing their image being hurt and
taking action against that. Also my point that the Disney stuck by
Majors for a long time even though his actions were clearly a much
more serious threat. Only because they already had a significant
on-going investment in him as Kang. Otherwise I feel certain they
would have cut ties with him shortly after the issue came up because
it was potentially much more damaging to the company image.

My other point in bringing up those two cases is that we are in a
different age where it's become much more obvious how quickly social
media can damage someone or some companies image if quick action isn't
taken. So I expect more companies to act quickly in the future (even
when they probably shouldn't.)

If I had thought of it I likely would have brought up Johnny Depp's
case as another one where Warner damaged their Pirate's franchise by
the quick action they took against him. Though even now there still
seem to be a number of people supporting Amber Heard even with the
evidence given against her.
>>. . .
>
>>I get that you see it differently and I think we are just going to
>>have to agree to disagree as I think they made a decision based a
>>business evaluation and you see it otherwise. So be it.
>
>>. . .

On Feb 7, 2024 at 10:41:50 PM PST, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 03:08:44 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 13, 2021 at 2:17:05 PM PST, "FPP" <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/13/21 10:29 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>>> moviePig
>>>>>> BTR1701
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And... that's it? That's the full depth and breadth of what
>>>>>> conservatives are allowed to say online without risking their
>>>>>> livelihoods?
>>>>>
>>>>> When you use your employer as a platform, you can expect your
>>>>> employer (a self-interested entity) to take note. She hasn't lost her
>>>>> right to speak her mind online, she just can't do it wearing mouse
>>>>> ears.
>>>>
>>>> And yet we were endlessly harangued by the media that Colin Kaepernick
>>>> had some kinda “right” hold protests while on company time, in company
>>>> uniform and on company property, effectively strong-arming the NFL into
>>>> supporting and promoting his personal political agenda.
>>>>
>>>> Meanwhile, Gina Carano was not "wearing mouse ears" when she made
>>>> her comments, that had nothing to do with the company she worked for
>>>> and were done on her own time.
>>>>
>>>> Are you immune to hypocrisy?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Again... NFL has a contract that permits it. C O N T R A C T.
>>> Carano has a history of shit-talking. If she has a contract that
>>> permits it, Disney will pay.
>>>
>>> But she has no such 'right' to work where they don't tolerate shit talking.
>>
>> And yet her co-star Pedro Pascal talked the exact same shit-talk in public,
>> and was not only NOT fired for it, he was praised by the Left.
>>
>> Same shit-post, same show, same company. One fired, the other lionized.
>>
>> Make it make sense without acknowledging Carano was fired for not being a
>> Leftist.
>
> It wasn't that she was not a Leftist, but that rightly or wrongly she
> was seen as saying much more controversial statements.

They said the SAME thing.

> Such as that
> one tweet she made that seemed to be equating the political fighting
> to Nazism. Which we all know never goes well since it breaks Godwin's
> law (or at least a related law.)

And Pascal made the same Nazi comparison.

> Though the real problem seems to be that she said such things that
> were taken as offensive and when told to stop she didn't. My
> understanding is that there was another actress that said similar
> things and got into trouble, but when she was told to stop she did and
> still kept working. As for Pedro Pascal his comments were not seen as
> offensive because his political comments were in support of things
> like BLM and LBGTQ.

Yes. He's a leftist and said things in support of leftism. She's a
conservative and said things in support of conservatism.

She was fired. He wasn't.

She was fired for not being a leftist.

On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 20:27:29 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>On Feb 7, 2024 at 10:41:50 PM PST, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
>wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 03:08:44 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 13, 2021 at 2:17:05 PM PST, "FPP" <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/13/21 10:29 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>>>> moviePig
>>>>>>> BTR1701
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And... that's it? That's the full depth and breadth of what
>>>>>>> conservatives are allowed to say online without risking their
>>>>>>> livelihoods?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you use your employer as a platform, you can expect your
>>>>>> employer (a self-interested entity) to take note. She hasn't lost her
>>>>>> right to speak her mind online, she just can't do it wearing mouse
>>>>>> ears.
>>>>>
>>>>> And yet we were endlessly harangued by the media that Colin Kaepernick
>>>>> had some kinda “right” hold protests while on company time, in company
>>>>> uniform and on company property, effectively strong-arming the NFL into
>>>>> supporting and promoting his personal political agenda.
>>>>>
>>>>> Meanwhile, Gina Carano was not "wearing mouse ears" when she made
>>>>> her comments, that had nothing to do with the company she worked for
>>>>> and were done on her own time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you immune to hypocrisy?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Again... NFL has a contract that permits it. C O N T R A C T.
>>>> Carano has a history of shit-talking. If she has a contract that
>>>> permits it, Disney will pay.
>>>>
>>>> But she has no such 'right' to work where they don't tolerate shit talking.
>>>
>>> And yet her co-star Pedro Pascal talked the exact same shit-talk in public,
>>> and was not only NOT fired for it, he was praised by the Left.
>>>
>>> Same shit-post, same show, same company. One fired, the other lionized.
>>>
>>> Make it make sense without acknowledging Carano was fired for not being a
>>> Leftist.
>>
>> It wasn't that she was not a Leftist, but that rightly or wrongly she
>> was seen as saying much more controversial statements.
>
>They said the SAME thing.

I didn't see that.

>> Such as that
>> one tweet she made that seemed to be equating the political fighting
>> to Nazism. Which we all know never goes well since it breaks Godwin's
>> law (or at least a related law.)
>
>And Pascal made the same Nazi comparison.

Again I didn't see that. If he did then I'm going to think that both
were approached and told not to do that. Pedro likely responded with
"Yes, sir" while Carano said "No, sir". At least that's what I recall
happening. So it isn't the single statement that got Carano into such
trouble but refusing to stop making such posts when asked to do so by
Disney.

>> Though the real problem seems to be that she said such things that
>> were taken as offensive and when told to stop she didn't. My
>> understanding is that there was another actress that said similar
>> things and got into trouble, but when she was told to stop she did and
>> still kept working. As for Pedro Pascal his comments were not seen as
>> offensive because his political comments were in support of things
>> like BLM and LBGTQ.
>
>Yes. He's a leftist and said things in support of leftism. She's a
>conservative and said things in support of conservatism.
>
>She was fired. He wasn't.
>
>She was fired for not being a leftist.

You say that but it's not clear to me from what I recall that she got
fired over any specific statements but for refusing to stop making
statements that made Disney uncomfortable. I have no idea if Pedro
Pascal refused stop or not. I do seem to recall there was another
actress making statements that also made Disney uncomfortable but
agreed to stop doing so when approached by Disney.

On 2/8/2024 4:01 PM, shawn wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 20:27:29 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 7, 2024 at 10:41:50 PM PST, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 03:08:44 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Feb 13, 2021 at 2:17:05 PM PST, "FPP" <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/13/21 10:29 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>>>>> moviePig
>>>>>>>> BTR1701
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And... that's it? That's the full depth and breadth of what
>>>>>>>> conservatives are allowed to say online without risking their
>>>>>>>> livelihoods?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When you use your employer as a platform, you can expect your
>>>>>>> employer (a self-interested entity) to take note. She hasn't lost her
>>>>>>> right to speak her mind online, she just can't do it wearing mouse
>>>>>>> ears.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And yet we were endlessly harangued by the media that Colin Kaepernick
>>>>>> had some kinda “right” hold protests while on company time, in company
>>>>>> uniform and on company property, effectively strong-arming the NFL into
>>>>>> supporting and promoting his personal political agenda.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Meanwhile, Gina Carano was not "wearing mouse ears" when she made
>>>>>> her comments, that had nothing to do with the company she worked for
>>>>>> and were done on her own time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you immune to hypocrisy?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Again... NFL has a contract that permits it. C O N T R A C T.
>>>>> Carano has a history of shit-talking. If she has a contract that
>>>>> permits it, Disney will pay.
>>>>>
>>>>> But she has no such 'right' to work where they don't tolerate shit talking.
>>>>
>>>> And yet her co-star Pedro Pascal talked the exact same shit-talk in public,
>>>> and was not only NOT fired for it, he was praised by the Left.
>>>>
>>>> Same shit-post, same show, same company. One fired, the other lionized.
>>>>
>>>> Make it make sense without acknowledging Carano was fired for not being a
>>>> Leftist.
>>>
>>> It wasn't that she was not a Leftist, but that rightly or wrongly she
>>> was seen as saying much more controversial statements.
>>
>> They said the SAME thing.
>
> I didn't see that.
>
>>> Such as that
>>> one tweet she made that seemed to be equating the political fighting
>>> to Nazism. Which we all know never goes well since it breaks Godwin's
>>> law (or at least a related law.)
>>
>> And Pascal made the same Nazi comparison.
>
> Again I didn't see that. If he did then I'm going to think that both
> were approached and told not to do that. Pedro likely responded with
> "Yes, sir" while Carano said "No, sir". At least that's what I recall
> happening. So it isn't the single statement that got Carano into such
> trouble but refusing to stop making such posts when asked to do so by
> Disney.
>
>>> Though the real problem seems to be that she said such things that
>>> were taken as offensive and when told to stop she didn't. My
>>> understanding is that there was another actress that said similar
>>> things and got into trouble, but when she was told to stop she did and
>>> still kept working. As for Pedro Pascal his comments were not seen as
>>> offensive because his political comments were in support of things
>>> like BLM and LBGTQ.
>>
>> Yes. He's a leftist and said things in support of leftism. She's a
>> conservative and said things in support of conservatism.
>>
>> She was fired. He wasn't.
>>
>> She was fired for not being a leftist.
>
> You say that but it's not clear to me from what I recall that she got
> fired over any specific statements but for refusing to stop making
> statements that made Disney uncomfortable. I have no idea if Pedro
> Pascal refused stop or not. I do seem to recall there was another
> actress making statements that also made Disney uncomfortable but
> agreed to stop doing so when approached by Disney.

I doubt there's any political agenda here, just a well-researched
question of which side will throw the biggest hissyfit. DisneyCorp is
undoubtedly far less concerned with bipartisanship than with viewers
who'll vote with their pocketbooks.

On Feb 8, 2024 at 1:01:39 PM PST, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 20:27:29 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 7, 2024 at 10:41:50 PM PST, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 03:08:44 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Feb 13, 2021 at 2:17:05 PM PST, "FPP" <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/13/21 10:29 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>>>>> moviePig
>>>>>>>> BTR1701
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And... that's it? That's the full depth and breadth of what
>>>>>>>> conservatives are allowed to say online without risking their
>>>>>>>> livelihoods?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When you use your employer as a platform, you can expect your
>>>>>>> employer (a self-interested entity) to take note. She hasn't lost her
>>>>>>> right to speak her mind online, she just can't do it wearing mouse
>>>>>>> ears.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And yet we were endlessly harangued by the media that Colin Kaepernick
>>>>>> had some kinda “right” hold protests while on company time, in company
>>>>>> uniform and on company property, effectively strong-arming the NFL into
>>>>>> supporting and promoting his personal political agenda.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Meanwhile, Gina Carano was not "wearing mouse ears" when she made
>>>>>> her comments, that had nothing to do with the company she worked for
>>>>>> and were done on her own time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you immune to hypocrisy?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Again... NFL has a contract that permits it. C O N T R A C T.
>>>>> Carano has a history of shit-talking. If she has a contract that
>>>>> permits it, Disney will pay.
>>>>>
>>>>> But she has no such 'right' to work where they don't tolerate shit talking.
>>>>
>>>> And yet her co-star Pedro Pascal talked the exact same shit-talk in public,
>>>> and was not only NOT fired for it, he was praised by the Left.
>>>>
>>>> Same shit-post, same show, same company. One fired, the other lionized.
>>>>
>>>> Make it make sense without acknowledging Carano was fired for not being a
>>>> Leftist.
>>>
>>> It wasn't that she was not a Leftist, but that rightly or wrongly she
>>> was seen as saying much more controversial statements.
>>
>> They said the SAME thing.
>
> I didn't see that.
>
>>> Such as that
>>> one tweet she made that seemed to be equating the political fighting
>>> to Nazism. Which we all know never goes well since it breaks Godwin's
>>> law (or at least a related law.)
>>
>> And Pascal made the same Nazi comparison.
>
> Again I didn't see that. If he did then I'm going to think that both
> were approached and told not to do that. Pedro likely responded with
> "Yes, sir" while Carano said "No, sir". At least that's what I recall
> happening. So it isn't the single statement that got Carano into such
> trouble but refusing to stop making such posts when asked to do so by
> Disney.
>
>>> Though the real problem seems to be that she said such things that
>>> were taken as offensive and when told to stop she didn't. My
>>> understanding is that there was another actress that said similar
>>> things and got into trouble, but when she was told to stop she did and
>>> still kept working. As for Pedro Pascal his comments were not seen as
>>> offensive because his political comments were in support of things
>>> like BLM and LBGTQ.
>>
>> Yes. He's a leftist and said things in support of leftism. She's a
>> conservative and said things in support of conservatism.
>>
>> She was fired. He wasn't.
>>
>> She was fired for not being a leftist.
>
> You say that but it's not clear to me from what I recall that she got
> fired over any specific statements but for refusing to stop making
> statements that made Disney uncomfortable.

Conservatism political statements make Disney uncomfortable.

Leftist political statements do not make Disney uncomfortable.

She was fired for not being a leftist.

On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 21:20:49 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>On Feb 8, 2024 at 1:01:39 PM PST, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
>wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 20:27:29 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 7, 2024 at 10:41:50 PM PST, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 03:08:44 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 13, 2021 at 2:17:05 PM PST, "FPP" <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/13/21 10:29 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>>>>>> moviePig
>>>>>>>>> BTR1701
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And... that's it? That's the full depth and breadth of what
>>>>>>>>> conservatives are allowed to say online without risking their
>>>>>>>>> livelihoods?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When you use your employer as a platform, you can expect your
>>>>>>>> employer (a self-interested entity) to take note. She hasn't lost her
>>>>>>>> right to speak her mind online, she just can't do it wearing mouse
>>>>>>>> ears.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And yet we were endlessly harangued by the media that Colin Kaepernick
>>>>>>> had some kinda “right” hold protests while on company time, in company
>>>>>>> uniform and on company property, effectively strong-arming the NFL into
>>>>>>> supporting and promoting his personal political agenda.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Meanwhile, Gina Carano was not "wearing mouse ears" when she made
>>>>>>> her comments, that had nothing to do with the company she worked for
>>>>>>> and were done on her own time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you immune to hypocrisy?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again... NFL has a contract that permits it. C O N T R A C T.
>>>>>> Carano has a history of shit-talking. If she has a contract that
>>>>>> permits it, Disney will pay.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But she has no such 'right' to work where they don't tolerate shit talking.
>>>>>
>>>>> And yet her co-star Pedro Pascal talked the exact same shit-talk in public,
>>>>> and was not only NOT fired for it, he was praised by the Left.
>>>>>
>>>>> Same shit-post, same show, same company. One fired, the other lionized.
>>>>>
>>>>> Make it make sense without acknowledging Carano was fired for not being a
>>>>> Leftist.
>>>>
>>>> It wasn't that she was not a Leftist, but that rightly or wrongly she
>>>> was seen as saying much more controversial statements.
>>>
>>> They said the SAME thing.
>>
>> I didn't see that.
>>
>>>> Such as that
>>>> one tweet she made that seemed to be equating the political fighting
>>>> to Nazism. Which we all know never goes well since it breaks Godwin's
>>>> law (or at least a related law.)
>>>
>>> And Pascal made the same Nazi comparison.
>>
>> Again I didn't see that. If he did then I'm going to think that both
>> were approached and told not to do that. Pedro likely responded with
>> "Yes, sir" while Carano said "No, sir". At least that's what I recall
>> happening. So it isn't the single statement that got Carano into such
>> trouble but refusing to stop making such posts when asked to do so by
>> Disney.
>>
>>>> Though the real problem seems to be that she said such things that
>>>> were taken as offensive and when told to stop she didn't. My
>>>> understanding is that there was another actress that said similar
>>>> things and got into trouble, but when she was told to stop she did and
>>>> still kept working. As for Pedro Pascal his comments were not seen as
>>>> offensive because his political comments were in support of things
>>>> like BLM and LBGTQ.
>>>
>>> Yes. He's a leftist and said things in support of leftism. She's a
>>> conservative and said things in support of conservatism.
>>>
>>> She was fired. He wasn't.
>>>
>>> She was fired for not being a leftist.
>>
>> You say that but it's not clear to me from what I recall that she got
>> fired over any specific statements but for refusing to stop making
>> statements that made Disney uncomfortable.
>
>Conservatism political statements make Disney uncomfortable.
>
>Leftist political statements do not make Disney uncomfortable.
>
>She was fired for not being a leftist.
>

It sounds like she's also going to have her public image have more mud
slung at her according to a video I just saw. Apparently Kathleen
Kennedy is pulling together comments from a number of people to make a
video coming out in the next month or two that points out how much
trouble Carano supposedly was. Thereby helping to justify why Disney
got rid of her, but also providing reasons why no one should hire her
going forward.

So it's Disney taking advantage of their position of power to carry
out multiple attacks on someone suing them. So they carry on the fight
in court but also outside of the court.

On Feb 8, 2024 at 1:49:55 PM PST, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 21:20:49 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 8, 2024 at 1:01:39 PM PST, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> You say that but it's not clear to me from what I recall that she got
>>> fired over any specific statements but for refusing to stop making
>>> statements that made Disney uncomfortable.
>>
>> Conservatism political statements make Disney uncomfortable.
>>
>> Leftist political statements do not make Disney uncomfortable.
>>
>> She was fired for not being a leftist.
>
> It sounds like she's also going to have her public image have more mud
> slung at her according to a video I just saw. Apparently Kathleen
> Kennedy is pulling together comments from a number of people to make a
> video coming out in the next month or two that points out how much
> trouble Carano supposedly was. Thereby helping to justify why Disney
> got rid of her, but also providing reasons why no one should hire her
> going forward.

She was *so* much trouble that right up until the moment she
tweeted-while-conservative they were planning an entire STAR WARS spin-off
show centered solely around her.

And Kathleen Kennedy is everything that's wrong with the STAR WARS franchise.
The guys at SOUTH PARK got it right: her basic strategy for every show and
movie is: "Make a woman the lead and make her gay. (And if there are any
legacy characters, especially the male ones, kill them off or make them seem
ridiculous.)"

On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 22:15:48 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>On Feb 8, 2024 at 1:49:55 PM PST, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
>wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 21:20:49 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 8, 2024 at 1:01:39 PM PST, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You say that but it's not clear to me from what I recall that she got
>>>> fired over any specific statements but for refusing to stop making
>>>> statements that made Disney uncomfortable.
>>>
>>> Conservatism political statements make Disney uncomfortable.
>>>
>>> Leftist political statements do not make Disney uncomfortable.
>>>
>>> She was fired for not being a leftist.
>>
>> It sounds like she's also going to have her public image have more mud
>> slung at her according to a video I just saw. Apparently Kathleen
>> Kennedy is pulling together comments from a number of people to make a
>> video coming out in the next month or two that points out how much
>> trouble Carano supposedly was. Thereby helping to justify why Disney
>> got rid of her, but also providing reasons why no one should hire her
>> going forward.
>
>She was *so* much trouble that right up until the moment she
>tweeted-while-conservative they were planning an entire STAR WARS spin-off
>show centered solely around her.
>
>And Kathleen Kennedy is everything that's wrong with the STAR WARS franchise.
>The guys at SOUTH PARK got it right: her basic strategy for every show and
>movie is: "Make a woman the lead and make her gay. (And if there are any
>legacy characters, especially the male ones, kill them off or make them seem
>ridiculous.)"
>

That's not some theory from the South Park guys. It's something she's
openly stated as focusing on DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) is the
mantra that all at Disney are expected to follow. So bringing in women
writers/directors/actors is a desirable thing for her even if the
people don't know or even like the material they are working from. So
we get people working on shows/movies based on the comics who never
read them and don't want to read them so they can "bring a unique
perspective to the project." That's what has been said multiple times
by Kennedy and others.

Why they seem to believe this is the way to grow the business I don't
understand. I get having strong female characters and am all for it,
but not at the cost of the story. It has to be story first then build
the project around that. By all means don't throw away your existing
fan base (which they seem eager to do) in the hopes of garnering a new
one. So many of the comments have been about the toxic male fan base
from various actors/directors and higher ups at Disney with their plan
to draw in a female fan base. Keep in mind that this is a female
population that has rejected the Marvel/Star Wars projects even when
they included strong female characters. Perhaps it's just not to their
taste?

On 2/7/24 10:08 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Feb 13, 2021 at 2:17:05 PM PST, "FPP" <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/13/21 10:29 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>> moviePig
>>>>> BTR1701
>>>>>
>>>>> And... that's it? That's the full depth and breadth of what
>>>>> conservatives are allowed to say online without risking their
>>>>> livelihoods?
>>>>
>>>> When you use your employer as a platform, you can expect your
>>>> employer (a self-interested entity) to take note. She hasn't lost her
>>>> right to speak her mind online, she just can't do it wearing mouse
>>>> ears.
>>>
>>> And yet we were endlessly harangued by the media that Colin Kaepernick
>>> had some kinda “right” hold protests while on company time, in company
>>> uniform and on company property, effectively strong-arming the NFL into
>>> supporting and promoting his personal political agenda.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, Gina Carano was not "wearing mouse ears" when she made
>>> her comments, that had nothing to do with the company she worked for
>>> and were done on her own time.
>>>
>>> Are you immune to hypocrisy?
>>>
>>
>> Again... NFL has a contract that permits it. C O N T R A C T.
>> Carano has a history of shit-talking. If she has a contract that
>> permits it, Disney will pay.
>>
>> But she has no such 'right' to work where they don't tolerate shit talking.
>
> And yet her co-star Pedro Pascal talked the exact same shit-talk in public,
> and was not only NOT fired for it, he was praised by the Left.
>
> Same shit-post, same show, same company. One fired, the other lionized.
>
> Make it make sense without acknowledging Carano was fired for not being a
> Leftist.
>
>

Gosh why didn't Disney fire the guy playing the Mandalorian on the show
literally named "THE Mandalorian"?

Any brilliant thoughts as to a possible reason?

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 2/8/24 3:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Feb 7, 2024 at 10:41:50 PM PST, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 03:08:44 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 13, 2021 at 2:17:05 PM PST, "FPP" <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/13/21 10:29 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>>>> moviePig
>>>>>>> BTR1701
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And... that's it? That's the full depth and breadth of what
>>>>>>> conservatives are allowed to say online without risking their
>>>>>>> livelihoods?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you use your employer as a platform, you can expect your
>>>>>> employer (a self-interested entity) to take note. She hasn't lost her
>>>>>> right to speak her mind online, she just can't do it wearing mouse
>>>>>> ears.
>>>>>
>>>>> And yet we were endlessly harangued by the media that Colin Kaepernick
>>>>> had some kinda “right” hold protests while on company time, in company
>>>>> uniform and on company property, effectively strong-arming the NFL into
>>>>> supporting and promoting his personal political agenda.
>>>>>
>>>>> Meanwhile, Gina Carano was not "wearing mouse ears" when she made
>>>>> her comments, that had nothing to do with the company she worked for
>>>>> and were done on her own time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you immune to hypocrisy?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Again... NFL has a contract that permits it. C O N T R A C T.
>>>> Carano has a history of shit-talking. If she has a contract that
>>>> permits it, Disney will pay.
>>>>
>>>> But she has no such 'right' to work where they don't tolerate shit talking.
>>>
>>> And yet her co-star Pedro Pascal talked the exact same shit-talk in public,
>>> and was not only NOT fired for it, he was praised by the Left.
>>>
>>> Same shit-post, same show, same company. One fired, the other lionized.
>>>
>>> Make it make sense without acknowledging Carano was fired for not being a
>>> Leftist.
>>
>> It wasn't that she was not a Leftist, but that rightly or wrongly she
>> was seen as saying much more controversial statements.
>
> They said the SAME thing.
>
>> Such as that
>> one tweet she made that seemed to be equating the political fighting
>> to Nazism. Which we all know never goes well since it breaks Godwin's
>> law (or at least a related law.)
>
> And Pascal made the same Nazi comparison.
>
>> Though the real problem seems to be that she said such things that
>> were taken as offensive and when told to stop she didn't. My
>> understanding is that there was another actress that said similar
>> things and got into trouble, but when she was told to stop she did and
>> still kept working. As for Pedro Pascal his comments were not seen as
>> offensive because his political comments were in support of things
>> like BLM and LBGTQ.
>
> Yes. He's a leftist and said things in support of leftism. She's a
> conservative and said things in support of conservatism.
>
> She was fired. He wasn't.
>
> She was fired for not being a leftist.
>
>

Pascal wasn't fired because he's the title character, you moron.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 2/8/24 4:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Feb 8, 2024 at 1:01:39 PM PST, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 20:27:29 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 7, 2024 at 10:41:50 PM PST, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 03:08:44 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 13, 2021 at 2:17:05 PM PST, "FPP" <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/13/21 10:29 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>>>>>> moviePig
>>>>>>>>> BTR1701
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And... that's it? That's the full depth and breadth of what
>>>>>>>>> conservatives are allowed to say online without risking their
>>>>>>>>> livelihoods?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When you use your employer as a platform, you can expect your
>>>>>>>> employer (a self-interested entity) to take note. She hasn't lost her
>>>>>>>> right to speak her mind online, she just can't do it wearing mouse
>>>>>>>> ears.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And yet we were endlessly harangued by the media that Colin Kaepernick
>>>>>>> had some kinda “right” hold protests while on company time, in company
>>>>>>> uniform and on company property, effectively strong-arming the NFL into
>>>>>>> supporting and promoting his personal political agenda.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Meanwhile, Gina Carano was not "wearing mouse ears" when she made
>>>>>>> her comments, that had nothing to do with the company she worked for
>>>>>>> and were done on her own time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you immune to hypocrisy?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again... NFL has a contract that permits it. C O N T R A C T.
>>>>>> Carano has a history of shit-talking. If she has a contract that
>>>>>> permits it, Disney will pay.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But she has no such 'right' to work where they don't tolerate shit talking.
>>>>>
>>>>> And yet her co-star Pedro Pascal talked the exact same shit-talk in public,
>>>>> and was not only NOT fired for it, he was praised by the Left.
>>>>>
>>>>> Same shit-post, same show, same company. One fired, the other lionized.
>>>>>
>>>>> Make it make sense without acknowledging Carano was fired for not being a
>>>>> Leftist.
>>>>
>>>> It wasn't that she was not a Leftist, but that rightly or wrongly she
>>>> was seen as saying much more controversial statements.
>>>
>>> They said the SAME thing.
>>
>> I didn't see that.
>>
>>>> Such as that
>>>> one tweet she made that seemed to be equating the political fighting
>>>> to Nazism. Which we all know never goes well since it breaks Godwin's
>>>> law (or at least a related law.)
>>>
>>> And Pascal made the same Nazi comparison.
>>
>> Again I didn't see that. If he did then I'm going to think that both
>> were approached and told not to do that. Pedro likely responded with
>> "Yes, sir" while Carano said "No, sir". At least that's what I recall
>> happening. So it isn't the single statement that got Carano into such
>> trouble but refusing to stop making such posts when asked to do so by
>> Disney.
>>
>>>> Though the real problem seems to be that she said such things that
>>>> were taken as offensive and when told to stop she didn't. My
>>>> understanding is that there was another actress that said similar
>>>> things and got into trouble, but when she was told to stop she did and
>>>> still kept working. As for Pedro Pascal his comments were not seen as
>>>> offensive because his political comments were in support of things
>>>> like BLM and LBGTQ.
>>>
>>> Yes. He's a leftist and said things in support of leftism. She's a
>>> conservative and said things in support of conservatism.
>>>
>>> She was fired. He wasn't.
>>>
>>> She was fired for not being a leftist.
>>
>> You say that but it's not clear to me from what I recall that she got
>> fired over any specific statements but for refusing to stop making
>> statements that made Disney uncomfortable.
>
> Conservatism political statements make Disney uncomfortable.
>
> Leftist political statements do not make Disney uncomfortable.
>
> She was fired for not being a leftist.
>
>

Or for being an asshole about it. Or should we just gloss over what
else she said?

> This is not the first time Carano, who played former Rebel Alliance soldier Cara Dune on The Mandalorian, has been the focus of social media ire for her political comments. Last November, she issued contentious tweets, one in which she mocked mask-wearing amid the novel coronavirus pandemic and another in which she falsely suggested voter fraud occurred during the 2020 presidential election.

So she's not exactly like Pedro Pascal, is she?

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 16:49:55 -0500, shawn
<nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

>It sounds like she's also going to have her public image have more mud
>slung at her according to a video I just saw. Apparently Kathleen
>Kennedy is pulling together comments from a number of people to make a
>video coming out in the next month or two that points out how much
>trouble Carano supposedly was. Thereby helping to justify why Disney
>got rid of her, but also providing reasons why no one should hire her
>going forward.
>
>So it's Disney taking advantage of their position of power to carry
>out multiple attacks on someone suing them. So they carry on the fight
>in court but also outside of the court.

That sounds like Disney is "asking" for a lawsuit since one of the key
aspects of employment law (and from what I've heard the main
difference between Canadian and US employment law is that damage
awards to plaintiffs tend to be a lot more generous Stateside) is that
while an employer may or may not be justified in dismissing an
employee the key thing they are NOT allowed to do is make statements
either publicly or privately to prospective new employers that would
harm the former employee's prospects of new employments.

Obviously if it's due to criminal activity or actions that make the
corporation likely to have to defend a suit it's different but what is
not allowed is over the top statements to prospective employers.

You're allowed to dismiss employees - you're not allowed to render
them unemployable.

On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 18:04:10 -0500, shawn
<nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

>That's not some theory from the South Park guys. It's something she's
>openly stated as focusing on DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) is the
>mantra that all at Disney are expected to follow. So bringing in women
>writers/directors/actors is a desirable thing for her even if the
>people don't know or even like the material they are working from. So
>we get people working on shows/movies based on the comics who never
>read them and don't want to read them so they can "bring a unique
>perspective to the project." That's what has been said multiple times
>by Kennedy and others.

A bit difficult to 'bring a unique perspective' if you haven't read
the original no?

Unless the writer is depending on somebody else's perspective which is
a really easy way to "put one's foot in it" legally. (Particularly if
the author of the source is still living)

On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 15:04:42 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 16:49:55 -0500, shawn
><nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>
>>It sounds like she's also going to have her public image have more mud
>>slung at her according to a video I just saw. Apparently Kathleen
>>Kennedy is pulling together comments from a number of people to make a
>>video coming out in the next month or two that points out how much
>>trouble Carano supposedly was. Thereby helping to justify why Disney
>>got rid of her, but also providing reasons why no one should hire her
>>going forward.
>>
>>So it's Disney taking advantage of their position of power to carry
>>out multiple attacks on someone suing them. So they carry on the fight
>>in court but also outside of the court.
>
>That sounds like Disney is "asking" for a lawsuit since one of the key
>aspects of employment law (and from what I've heard the main
>difference between Canadian and US employment law is that damage
>awards to plaintiffs tend to be a lot more generous Stateside) is that
>while an employer may or may not be justified in dismissing an
>employee the key thing they are NOT allowed to do is make statements
>either publicly or privately to prospective new employers that would
>harm the former employee's prospects of new employments.

Supposedly Kennedy is going to be presenting the facts behind Carano's
being let go. If she sticks just to the facts I don't think that is
going to violate employment law since Carano has been disparaging the
company. So this could be seen as Kennedy just defending herself and
Disney with the facts in the case.

Of course that assumes that Kennedy actually has verifiable facts that
show Carano was being a disruptive force.

>Obviously if it's due to criminal activity or actions that make the
>corporation likely to have to defend a suit it's different but what is
>not allowed is over the top statements to prospective employers.
>
>You're allowed to dismiss employees - you're not allowed to render
>them unemployable.

On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 15:07:14 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 18:04:10 -0500, shawn
><nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>
>>That's not some theory from the South Park guys. It's something she's
>>openly stated as focusing on DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) is the
>>mantra that all at Disney are expected to follow. So bringing in women
>>writers/directors/actors is a desirable thing for her even if the
>>people don't know or even like the material they are working from. So
>>we get people working on shows/movies based on the comics who never
>>read them and don't want to read them so they can "bring a unique
>>perspective to the project." That's what has been said multiple times
>>by Kennedy and others.
>
>A bit difficult to 'bring a unique perspective' if you haven't read
>the original no?

Sort of but you know they got presented with an idea. Likely some
short description of what the movie/show is about like She Hulk being
about a cousin of Banner that is a lawyer who ends up with Hulk
powers. It's the basis of the show but where it goes from there could
be anywhere if you don't know the original material and don't intend
to read/follow it.

>Unless the writer is depending on somebody else's perspective which is
>a really easy way to "put one's foot in it" legally. (Particularly if
>the author of the source is still living)

In article <tjcdsid79c00jfj0h1f60l678so0vm9q9h@4ax.com>,
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 15:04:42 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 16:49:55 -0500, shawn
> ><nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
> >
> >>It sounds like she's also going to have her public image have more mud
> >>slung at her according to a video I just saw. Apparently Kathleen
> >>Kennedy is pulling together comments from a number of people to make a
> >>video coming out in the next month or two that points out how much
> >>trouble Carano supposedly was. Thereby helping to justify why Disney
> >>got rid of her, but also providing reasons why no one should hire her
> >>going forward.
> >>
> >>So it's Disney taking advantage of their position of power to carry
> >>out multiple attacks on someone suing them. So they carry on the fight
> >>in court but also outside of the court.
> >
> >That sounds like Disney is "asking" for a lawsuit since one of the key
> >aspects of employment law (and from what I've heard the main
> >difference between Canadian and US employment law is that damage
> >awards to plaintiffs tend to be a lot more generous Stateside) is that
> >while an employer may or may not be justified in dismissing an
> >employee the key thing they are NOT allowed to do is make statements
> >either publicly or privately to prospective new employers that would
> >harm the former employee's prospects of new employments.
>
> Supposedly Kennedy is going to be presenting the facts behind Carano's
> being let go. If she sticks just to the facts I don't think that is
> going to violate employment law since Carano has been disparaging the
> company. So this could be seen as Kennedy just defending herself and
> Disney with the facts in the case.
>
> Of course that assumes that Kennedy actually has verifiable facts that
> show Carano was being a disruptive force.

Or that she isn't just defining 'disruptive' as being stubbornly
conservative.

On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 15:31:03 -0800, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>In article <tjcdsid79c00jfj0h1f60l678so0vm9q9h@4ax.com>,
> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 15:04:42 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 16:49:55 -0500, shawn
>> ><nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>It sounds like she's also going to have her public image have more mud
>> >>slung at her according to a video I just saw. Apparently Kathleen
>> >>Kennedy is pulling together comments from a number of people to make a
>> >>video coming out in the next month or two that points out how much
>> >>trouble Carano supposedly was. Thereby helping to justify why Disney
>> >>got rid of her, but also providing reasons why no one should hire her
>> >>going forward.
>> >>
>> >>So it's Disney taking advantage of their position of power to carry
>> >>out multiple attacks on someone suing them. So they carry on the fight
>> >>in court but also outside of the court.
>> >
>> >That sounds like Disney is "asking" for a lawsuit since one of the key
>> >aspects of employment law (and from what I've heard the main
>> >difference between Canadian and US employment law is that damage
>> >awards to plaintiffs tend to be a lot more generous Stateside) is that
>> >while an employer may or may not be justified in dismissing an
>> >employee the key thing they are NOT allowed to do is make statements
>> >either publicly or privately to prospective new employers that would
>> >harm the former employee's prospects of new employments.
>>
>> Supposedly Kennedy is going to be presenting the facts behind Carano's
>> being let go. If she sticks just to the facts I don't think that is
>> going to violate employment law since Carano has been disparaging the
>> company. So this could be seen as Kennedy just defending herself and
>> Disney with the facts in the case.
>>
>> Of course that assumes that Kennedy actually has verifiable facts that
>> show Carano was being a disruptive force.
>
>Or that she isn't just defining 'disruptive' as being stubbornly
>conservative.

If that was the case then I would expect the evidence would show that
to be the case. Hopefully Kennedy and the Disney lawyers are smarter
than that.

On 2/9/24 6:54 PM, shawn wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 15:31:03 -0800, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <tjcdsid79c00jfj0h1f60l678so0vm9q9h@4ax.com>,
>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 15:04:42 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 16:49:55 -0500, shawn
>>>> <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It sounds like she's also going to have her public image have more mud
>>>>> slung at her according to a video I just saw. Apparently Kathleen
>>>>> Kennedy is pulling together comments from a number of people to make a
>>>>> video coming out in the next month or two that points out how much
>>>>> trouble Carano supposedly was. Thereby helping to justify why Disney
>>>>> got rid of her, but also providing reasons why no one should hire her
>>>>> going forward.
>>>>>
>>>>> So it's Disney taking advantage of their position of power to carry
>>>>> out multiple attacks on someone suing them. So they carry on the fight
>>>>> in court but also outside of the court.
>>>>
>>>> That sounds like Disney is "asking" for a lawsuit since one of the key
>>>> aspects of employment law (and from what I've heard the main
>>>> difference between Canadian and US employment law is that damage
>>>> awards to plaintiffs tend to be a lot more generous Stateside) is that
>>>> while an employer may or may not be justified in dismissing an
>>>> employee the key thing they are NOT allowed to do is make statements
>>>> either publicly or privately to prospective new employers that would
>>>> harm the former employee's prospects of new employments.
>>>
>>> Supposedly Kennedy is going to be presenting the facts behind Carano's
>>> being let go. If she sticks just to the facts I don't think that is
>>> going to violate employment law since Carano has been disparaging the
>>> company. So this could be seen as Kennedy just defending herself and
>>> Disney with the facts in the case.
>>>
>>> Of course that assumes that Kennedy actually has verifiable facts that
>>> show Carano was being a disruptive force.
>>
>> Or that she isn't just defining 'disruptive' as being stubbornly
>> conservative.
>
> If that was the case then I would expect the evidence would show that
> to be the case. Hopefully Kennedy and the Disney lawyers are smarter
> than that.
>

Ask Ron DeSantis.

"Disney blocks Ron DeSantis’ Florida power play with a royal family clause."

> The Walt Disney Co. used a legal clause that name checks King Charles III to apparently thwart Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ attempt to strip the company of its self-governance power in the state.
> As part of a 30-year development agreement, Disney no longer needs board approval to build high-density projects or buildings of any height and can sell or assign development rights. It also bans the board from using Disney’s name or any of its characters.

> The agreement includes a royal clause that dates back to 1692 in Britain and would extend its term limit for decades.
>
> This “Declaration shall continue in effect until 21 years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, King of England, living as of the date of this declaration,” the document said. This kind of clause is most often used in the U.K., typically when it comes to trusts, and provides a buffer against perpetuities.

Sounds like Gina is going to need a really good lawyer. (Sorry, Thanny...)

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0