It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I have said what I said. My opinions that I originally put forward are there for all to read. I mean them all, including not wanting to talk about trans issues despite your insinuations. (just to make it clear, I brought it up because it was one of the things Carano got in hot water for and is clear causing other issues with celebrities such as Graham Linehan and Jk Rowling).
I only ask that anyone reading your post goes back and sees everything I wrote in its original context.
If you don't think what happened in China, the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Romania, East Germany etc in the latter half of the 20th century is dystopian then I can't help you.
The James Gunn one was odd because he was a comedy writer and was hired because he was a comedy writer. And then got fired for writing jokes.
JK Rowling clearly said or wrote nothing controversial to any sane person.
Gina Carano looks like a different case in that she was posting stuff that is more inflammatory.
Well said. The artist is one thing, the art something else entirely. I have no trouble enjoying Rosemary's Baby, Jeepers Creepers, The Shining, Se7en, ... I'm not going to boycott these movies, refuse to watch them, pretend they even exist.
I do agree with @mtm, however, that I shouldn't overstate the issue. I get nervous when people "demand" something, but their demands rarely result in anything.
Regarding the Rowling case, I was nevertheless disappointed in some of the actors who aided in the backlash against her. I'm not saying people should be unconditionally loyal to the hand they fed them, but Radcliff, Watson and others may want to reflect just a brief while on who they are now thanks, in no small doses, to Rowling. She doesn't own them, but a little gratitude i.e. no backstabbing goes a long way.
Shame Solo didn't do as well as people hoped. Much better than a lot of the entries in the series I think.
Yes it is a bit ironic of Disney firing someone for controversial comments when they have to put content warnings on a load of their back catalogue!
Good point.
I don't think anyone agreed with the James Gunn thing did they? Again, I didn't follow it so I'm prepared to be wrong on that one! :)
What are you saying I've misinterpreted?
I'm not interested in getting personal just because you disagree with people.
Clam down on the aggression. I didn't 'insinuate' (which is word chosen to try and make it look like I was making personal accusations), I said quite clearly that you're talking about trans issues (which you wrote a whole paragraph on) rather than what Carano got fired over.
Well that's fair enough, I missed her saying that.
Stick that on the list of audience members she's annoyed then. As I said, it doesn't really matter if she's wrong or right, part of her job is not to bring the productions she's on bad publicity and to annoy people.
I think these comparisons are slightly crudely drawn and don't look at these matters with much depth or nuance. The crucial difference is that this isn't authoritarian but the people speaking. Carano's posts (the ones she was actually fired for and not the trans one you mention) drew weak comparisons to the persecution of the Jews.
I'm not going to reply to you any more on this as you seem to be trying to start an argument.
I don't know if they should feel they can't speak out because they owe her if it's something they really believe in, but the small part that I followed that situation (and I decided I didn't want to know much!) was that I found it quite bizarre that Daniel Radcliffe got involved to actually mansplain what a woman is, to a woman! :D
What I do find galling is that the opinions of celebs are open to more scrutiny now, and yet our politicians seem to be able to increasingly get away with breaking any rule or law without repercussions. Break lockdown? Fine. Be found guilty of workplace bullying by the body assigned to advise on it? Don't worry about it.
That's very well put! :)
Spot on.
And regardless of politics or how you feel in today's political climate, particularly when it comes to masks, the pandemic, etc., I do find it striking and pathetic when I see anyone seriously try to equate combatting misinformation from any side with the fate of the Jewish people in World War II.
Who gets to decide? Good luck when you have to face the 'consequences' for something you have said.
Free speech is for everyone or it's for no-one. It protects people from both the state and the tyranny of the mob. Some very bad things happen when we forget those principles. One day the mob and the state are on your side and all is dandy when people get cancelled or fired. The next day you will find yourself on the opposite side to whoever is in power or whatever the prevailing critical orthodoxy of the day is. Then what?
I agree that holocaust comparisons are pathetic. Pedro Pascal also put out a Tweet which made a concentration camp comparison, a couple of years ago. He wasn't fired from anything though, and nor should he have been.
"Freedom of speech" simply means no one can stop you from expressing yourself. She can lose her job, but she'll still have the ability to express her right to free speech. The consequences of her speech are a separate thing
Keep in mind, firing her is also more of a business decision, because if you associate with someone like her spewing out vile, others may not want to do business with you so you're left with fewer options.
This is the main point that most seem to have issue with grasping and understanding when they argue about free speech.
I am afraid freedom of speech means a lot more than the mere ability to write or speak.
If you think that only bad people will be affected or cancelled, or face 'consequences' by a culture that allows people to lose their livelihoods based on opinions, then you need to read some history.
This path only leads to one outcome and it is very, very, very bad.
No one is stopping her from freely speaking her mind.
To use a Star wars quote appropriate for this situation: "The ability to speak does not make you intelligent." She said stupid, unwarranted things, and just having freedom of speech does not defend repeating hateful things that have been disproven. Run into a crowded theater and shout "fire" and explain why you shouldn't be punished for causing an unwarranted panic.
What does being intelligent have to do with it?
This pathway of allowing and accepting 'consequences' of people's speech will only head in one direction.
I recommend everyone read The Gulag Archipelago by Solzhenitsyn.
Other than that, Christopher Hitchens made one of the best defences of free speech, even stupid speech, here:
No, we understand this point perfectly. It's just a really bad argument that's all.
Every society that took a cavalier attitude towards people's ability to express themselves with no consequences to their lives or livelihoods turned into very, very bad place very quickly.
No it doesn't. It only protects people from the state. There's nothing in the first amendment about the "tyranny of the mob".
I agree with you about Solo, very fun film. Having just re-watched Return of the Jedi, I do kind of regret skipping Solo in my marathon; there's a lot of nice things in there re Solo, Lando, and the Falcon.
I know it doesn't. And that's the loophole people use. I think it is a cowardly argument. It allows for private corporations to do the censoring and the punishing in place of the state. This can be just as bad as if the government itself is doing the censoring and the punishing.
But didn't you say in the post I quoted that it did? And I thought in a free market it was good to allow corporations to do whatever they want?
I think you're making private corporations and the government to be more similar than they are / certainly than they should be. It's why these antitrust cases against Google and Facebook are so interesting because they're so large they have the power of small governments in some cases.
I am talking about a culture that takes a cavalier attitude to free speech, and accepts that people will lose livelihoods for private opinions. I think, in fact I know, that any society that follow this path will end very badly.
I don't agree private corporations should be able to do what they want, and a free market of ideas is totally different from an economic free market. The former is good, the latter bad.
I am not saying the answer is easy. If we allow unfettered speech (calls for violence is my line), then there clearly will be some ugly opinions expressed by certain people. But the alternative is far far worse. It has been proven the case time and time again through history.
I didn't mean to imply that YOU were being cowardly, by the way. Just they argument that you quoted.
Anyway, I am a free speech fundamentalist. I realise many people are not. But I just feel it is so important that people should consider the consequences of carrying on this path of punishing people through loss of work. It leads to a very ugly place.
Shall we get back to Star Wars? Solo reminded me of a good space adventure again, like Buck Rogers.
Free market.
Terrible, isn't it?
Except they're not "private opinions", they were expressed very publicly for everyone to see. It's not like someone snuck into her house, illegally recorded her ill informed thoughts over the dinner table, and then posted it on social media for everyone to see.
Well, in my country there was an attempt to make something like this law - an actual attempt by government to pass laws that could criminalise speech in the home only this week. Thankfully it didn't pass.
All those of you who are defending private businesses firing people for what people have said, in public or not, seem to be under the impression you are immune from the 'cancellers' coming for you. You are assuming the fire you are helping to start won't consume you.
Honestly, its hard to disagree here. My knee-jerk reaction is to think that I'm in no danger of being "cancelled"; to me it's no mystery why these people are facing the consequences they're facing, when you look at the things they're making public. But, to your point, who knows what the unpopular opinion will be tomorrow.
What are your thoughts regarding social media's responsibility for the current "cancel culture" climate? Without Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, etc., the world wouldn't know (or likely care) what Gina thought about anything and Dune would continue to be a part of Star Wars, to the benefit of fans of The Mandalorian.
It's been interesting reading and watching all the content coming out about the dangers of social media, and I think it's more to blame for this new culture we find ourselves in than it may seem.