Political Correctness

[MatskiMonk]

She compared how conservatives are being treated to how Jews were treated in Nazi Germany.

Out of interest, where did she do this?

 

[Joey D]

Out of interest, where did she do this?

In a now-deleted Instagram post.

 

[UKMikey]

Unsurprisingly, Cernovich is among those bitching and moaning.

Judging by his smear career I suspect Cernovich wouldn't know what "good faith" meant if it were to whack him in the face with a plank of wood with nails sticking out of it.

Out of interest, where did she do this?

In a now-deleted Instagram post.

Which is really, really easy to find using Google:

 

[longshot1314]

@MatskiMonk she shared an image that essentially summarized how the holocaust started with the regime pitting people against one another and making the general populace hate them. There was no context provided with regards to the post so whether that can be inferred as defending Republicans or in what context is meant can't be determined.

As for the save Gina campaign, there already been numerous we love Gina hashtags going up against the fire one. And today #canceldisneyplus was trending #1 for a period. I'm honestly hoping someone leaks how many subscriptions get cancelled today. Not surprisingly there's already articles saying "Republicans start #canceldisneyplus" and google's search spits out all the negative articles on it, which really doesn't surprise me at all.

I'll say that I don't disagree with the statement made that she made a mistake in not being more careful. That said, I still stand by the fact that going through all the allegations against her, there's nothing that she's said that can be construed as promoting hate or harassment. This and the fact that she was fired over people developing their own context on her tweets, yet Pablo Hidalgo can keep his job after mocking a cancer survivor.

 

[Scaff]

@MatskiMonk she shared an image that essentially summarized how the holocaust started with the regime pitting people against one another and making the general populace hate them. There was no context provided with regards to the post so whether that can be inferred as defending Republicans or in what context is meant can't be determined.

As for the save Gina campaign, there already been numerous we love Gina hashtags going up against the fire one. And today #canceldisneyplus was trending #1 for a period. I'm honestly hoping someone leaks how many subscriptions get cancelled today. Not surprisingly there's already articles saying "Republicans start #canceldisneyplus" and google's search spits out all the negative articles on it, which really doesn't surprise me at all.

I'll say that I don't disagree with the statement made that she made a mistake in not being more careful. That said, I still stand by the fact that going through all the allegations against her, there's nothing that she's said that can be construed as promoting hate or harassment. This and the fact that she was fired over people developing their own context on her tweets, yet Pablo Hidalgo can keep his job after mocking a cancer survivor.

Technically Disney haven’t fired here, as she was out of contract, they have said they will not be hiring her again in the future.

 

[Danoff]

Technically Disney haven’t fired here, as she was out of contract, they have said they will not be hiring her again in the future.

You're talking about the group that doesn't understand the difference between making the government making speech illegal and a private company not wanting to be associated with people who say certain things. Or for that matter, the difference between the government systematically enslaving and exterminating a population, and uh... sorry I've lost lock here... whatever the right wingers think is being done to them now.

I think the nuance between "no new contract" and "fired" is well below the noise threshold here. Of course there absolutely is a difference.

 

[UKMikey]

As for the save Gina campaign, there already been numerous we love Gina hashtags going up against the fire one. And today #canceldisneyplus was trending #1 for a period. I'm honestly hoping someone leaks how many subscriptions get cancelled today. Not surprisingly there's already articles saying "Republicans start #canceldisneyplus" and google's search spits out all the negative articles on it, which really doesn't surprise me at all.

Considering the posts she got fired unrenewed over were all in support of Republican talking points like Covid denial and pronoun usage I don't understand why non-Republicans would be in the forefront of his campaign to get her reinstated. I wonder how many subscriptions they'd have to lose before U-turning and hiring her again. A fair few, I'd imagine.

Unfortunately Google is all I have as a search engine. Are there a lot of positive articles which they don't want us to see? Perhaps you wouldn't mind sharing some of them with the group.

 

[MatskiMonk]

In a now-deleted Instagram post.

Which is really, really easy to find using Google:

I know, I've seen the image. I meant specifically... I'm not seeing her make the comparison being claimed, the only claim that's being made appears to be that governments causing division makes it easier to further an agenda, and it still doesn't appear to be something she said, it's a tik-tok post from somebody else - and it appears to be a quote from another person beyond that. I'm not sure how it can be interpreted as antisemitic either - if anything I'd imagine the statement and image generates sympathy for the Jews that faced this abuse.

If there's further context, fine, I could be wrong, but based on what's being presented, I think the public's reaction is unjust.

 

[UKMikey]

I know, I've seen the image. I meant specifically... I'm not seeing her make the comparison being claimed, the only claim that's being made appears to be that governments causing division makes it easier to further an agenda, and it still doesn't appear to be something she said, it's a tik-tok post from somebody else - and it appears to be a quote from another person beyond that. I'm not sure how it can be interpreted as antisemitic either - if anything I'd imagine the statement and image generates sympathy for the Jews that faced this abuse.

If there's further context, fine, I could be wrong, but based on what's being presented, I think the public's reaction is unjust.

I think it can be interpreted as belittling or diminishing the persecution of Jewish people by comparing it to people disagreeing with their views. This kind of thing:



Just take off the cap. Jewish and black people can't remove our ethnicity quite as easily.

 

[Danoff]

I know, I've seen the image. I meant specifically... I'm not seeing her make the comparison being claimed, the only claim that's being made appears to be that governments causing division makes it easier to further an agenda, and it still doesn't appear to be something she said, it's a tik-tok post from somebody else - and it appears to be a quote from another person beyond that.

She's lending her celebrity to the voice of someone else (a celebrity with which Disney's brand is currently intertwined).

I'm not sure how it can be interpreted as antisemitic either - if anything I'd imagine the statement and image generates sympathy for the Jews that faced this abuse.

I, for one, can see another angle in addition to the one @UKMikey posted above. A person's decisions, to violate the law, to perpetuate violence, etc. immoral behavior, is being likened to, in this case, an ethnicity (I think not so much a religion). I can see how the ethnicity could be besmirched by this.

Imagine a serial killer making a similar statement. "You want my neighbors to hate me for what I am just as the people of nazi germany hated the jews". I can understand why the jewish ethnicity might be considered... unfavorably characterized based on the comparison to a serial killer.

If there's further context, fine, I could be wrong, but based on what's being presented, I think the public's reaction is unjust.

What's the public's reaction?

 

[TexRex]

As for the save Gina campaign, there already been numerous we love Gina hashtags going up against the fire one. And today #canceldisneyplus was trending #1 for a period. I'm honestly hoping someone leaks how many subscriptions get cancelled today. Not surprisingly there's already articles saying "Republicans start #canceldisneyplus" and google's search spits out all the negative articles on it, which really doesn't surprise me at all.

You came here recently to decry "cancel culture" and now you appear to be revelling in others indulging in it, even expressing a desire to observe actual quantitative results of their efforts. This is very strange. Is it okay? Is it not okay? Is it okay for some but not others? Is it okay in response to itself? Why?

...yet Pablo Hidalgo can keep his job after mocking a cancer survivor.

Was the recipient of his mockery's being a cancer survivor relevant to the mockery? That's awful if it was.

I sure hope nothing has been misrepresented to draw a stronger comparison between the two situations, because that would be deceitful.

 

[McLaren]

Is there any hard-right wing statement that isn't coated in a lack of self reflection?

Look at the current arguments made by Graham and these other doofuses in Congress trying to dismiss the impeachment. Nothing but arguments made in bad faith; no one is literally arguing Trump is a head member of the Proud Boys, but Graham has pulled that statement out of his ass.

 

[HenrySwanson]

From what I read and quoted in the report they got their data from working with the police. I'm not disputing that more than 2.8% of high profile court cases involved South Asians. I'm disputing that this reflects that South Asians are more likely to exploit children for sexual reasons.

That doesn't reflect it.

I'm saying that it's likely given every single study has them over-represented, as well as their own research. With the limitations addressed, how probable is it that it would realistically drop sufficiently so as to be in proportion.

I don't think you answered why you accepted their conclusion that white people were the majority offenders, unless that's what you meant by "they got their data from working with the police".

The report outlines possible reasons for why this is in the passages I quoted but basically it sounds like the police would have to have arrested 100% of exploiters in order for the arrest statistics to reflect racial characteristics.

No, that's not how statistics work. We can make conclusions from representative samples as it's usually impossible to have the entire population included (especially when dealing with large sizes).

The limitations with the studies are addressed in the report (and vary according to each study), but requiring a 100% arrest rate is definitely not one of them.

Your hypothesis doesn't account for the possibility that Asians or black people are being disproportionately investigated, arrested, tried and convicted which would hardly be a laughing matter.

Could be, but it's something you have to accept sometimes when working with statistics.

For example, some diseases may disproportionatly affect different communities, and some of that may be due to differences in self-reporting - but that doesn't necessarily preclude the authors from concluding a difference in prevalance rates.

I'll leave it for others on this forum to decide whether or not they're convinced by the remainder of your conjecture.

It is interesting why they didn't do a more thorough investigation into the characteristics of offenders. Using prison populations could have eliminated the problem with using police databases. But the report was badly handled from the outset.

If by "magically" you mean "through the very basic means of human communication," then sure. People don't like facing consequences; it's far easier to say that everybody else is just too sensitive, and, hey that shouldn't be my problem. This is an attractive idea, I can admit that. And so they all gather in their echo chambers and barf out diatribes about the "political correctness" boogeyman, and... Voila! A bunch of people all very un-magically buying into an idea that lets them be a little more comfortable with their bigotry.

Here's the thing you keep missing - all of these situations where people find themselves supposedly trapped by "political correctness" can't be anything more than imaginary. If someone doesn't do something for fear of "politically correct" backlash, then the feared potential "political correctness" isn't given a chance to actually materialize. How can there be a reaction to something that someone chose not to do? (Hint: there can't be.)

The "conditioning" you speak of may very well exist, but it's largely self-inflicted by people martyring themselves, speculating what would have happened had they done what they really wanted to do.

Then the question is why institutions have that culture. What has changed in the past 20-30 years that has meant people are afraid of acting appropriately because of the likelihood to offend and the possible effects on "community cohesion"?

It's so strange to me that you're talking about black-Caribbeans and black-Africans in London. Are they not just Londoners? Your statement here is first predicated on that being black is significant, and then that being (ancestrally?) from the Caribbean or African regions are significant.

When talking about knife crime it is. They are all Londoners, but they are more involved in knife crime and so affects their communities more.

Here is a breakdown of victims and perpetrators of knife crime in London in the years 2008-2018

If we pick a random year, say 2012 we see that people proceeded against for knife crime who were Afro Caribbean was 1475. This was higher even than the largest ethnic group in London (White European) which was 984. For victims, Afro Caribbeans made up 2799. Considering that, according to the 2011 census the percentage of black people in London was 13.3% you can see it is a massive problem for the community.

Have you asked yourself why you're not pursuing arguments about socioeconomic links to crime? Or single-parent links to crime?

Those are some of the reasons, and they affect the black community more hence the knife crime.

For some reason you're interested in calling out the differences between black-Caribbean and black-African links to crime, and I have no idea why that would be the case.

Because of the differences in the factors. If we look at one, say educational attainment, we see that:

At GCSE level, young people from the Black major ethnic group, on average, have the lowest combined English and maths pass rate of any major ethnic group. However, Black pupils fare better on the main progress measure. Black African pupils generally fare better than Black Caribbean pupils.

If we address these factors, we have a chance at reducing black-caribbean knife crime. I didn't think it needed to be said, but the problem isn't being black, but the factors.

You imply that there is a culture, and I guess by inference that this culture pertains to violent crime, associated with being black-Caribbean or black-African. I'm curious why you make that assumption.

So this has to do with how cultures can influence the factors that lead to knife crime.

...gang culture. Perhaps not black-Caribbean culture.

Yes, gang culture. Which the black-Caribbean community is drawn to in higher amounts for a variety of reasons.

The first step to solving a problem is acknowledging there is one.

Target what makes those of black-Caribbean descent want to join a gang. Set up interventions.

When I'm talking about problems with knife crime in the black community I'm saying we need to address that intelligently. For example. in London there are efforts to get youngsters into boxing to teach them discipline and steer them away from gangs. It would be idiotic to focus their efforts on Chinese kids as the problem isn't there.

Certainly religion has motivated (and been the scapegoat for) crimes for centuries. I'm not going to defend religion, and I'll leave you that soapbox. But if you don't think there's a causal link, why do you keep finding yourself talking about racial statistics and looking for racial links?

To highlight the problem. Not say that the race is the cause.

You seem genuinely captivated by this subject. I was hoping to explore more deeply why this particular subject captivates you so much. Have you had some personal experience? It sounds like you may have family ties to gang crime.

The subject of ethnicity and brain capability? I got interested in intelligence after realising I was only a handful of people of black descent studying my degree out of a cohort of hundreds. I wondered whether it may in part have to do with differences in capacity due to ethnicity, and I seriously questioned my ability to study the degree and how I would fare in what it was training me for, thinking that my heritage could be a reason. The debates I had on the subject here on GTP opened my eyes on many facets of the topic, and led to a re-evaluation of my beliefs while throwing up even more questions.

 

[UKMikey]

I'm saying that it's likely given every single study has them over-represented, as well as their own research. With the limitations addressed, how probable is it that it would realistically drop sufficiently so as to be in proportion.

I don't think you answered why you accepted their conclusion that white people were the majority offenders, unless that's what you meant by "they got their data from working with the police".

Because I don't accept that non whites are the majority offenders given their overwhelming minority and wonder what interest you'd have in drawing such an inference.

No, that's not how statistics work. We can make conclusions from representative samples as it's usually impossible to have the entire population included (especially when dealing with large sizes).

The limitations with the studies are addressed in the report (and vary according to each study), but requiring a 100% arrest rate is definitely not one of them.

You're missing my point. I understand how representative samples work but don't see how they conclusively prove that South Asians are more likely to sexually exploit children. See my following paragraph.

Could be, but it's something you have to accept sometimes when working with statistics.

For example, some diseases may disproportionatly affect different communities, and some of that may be due to differences in self-reporting - but that doesn't necessarily preclude the authors from concluding a difference in prevalance rates.

And yet this doesn't address that a difference in prevalence doesn't take into account the possibility that people of colour are being disproportionately investigated and convicted.

It is interesting why they didn't do a more thorough investigation into the characteristics of offenders. Using prison populations could have eliminated the problem with using police databases. But the report was badly handled from the outset.

Neither does this. As I understand it the margin of error would decrease the more crime was detected and arrests made but we have no way of knowing whether this is a majority or even a representative sample of all cases as the report points out that a large proportion of crimes of this nature go undetected.

But it's good that such an erudite and unbiased source as Dan Hodges from the Mail On Sunday has uncovered the obvious whitewash at the Home Office. Glad we've cleared that up. /s

 

[UKMikey]

Is there any hard-right wing statement that isn't coated in a lack of self reflection?

Look at the current arguments made by Graham and these other doofuses in Congress trying to dismiss the impeachment. Nothing but arguments made in bad faith; no one is literally arguing Trump is a head member of the Proud Boys, but Graham has pulled that statement out of his ass.

Another zinger in a similar vein:

 

[huskeR32]

Then the question is why institutions have that culture.

*sigh*

That's only a question if you refuse to look outside the box you've already built yourself into. The entire point of my last post is that the problem may not lie with institutions at all; rather with individuals who have scared themselves into inaction by convincing themselves of the existence of the "political correctness" boogeyman.

What has changed in the past 20-30 years that has meant people are afraid of acting appropriately because of the likelihood to offend and the possible effects on "community cohesion"?

Huge advancements in communication that enabled like-minded people to build echo chambers and stir each other up much faster and easier than ever before? This was also already addressed in my previous posts.

Seriously, once you've made up your mind about something, you just cannot entertain any other possibilities, can you? You're approaching this, as you are wont to do, as if everybody else has to start from the same basic assumptions you've started from. The existence of "political correctness" at an institutional level isn't established fact. You keep treating my responses to you as if they must start from that assumption. I'm trying to tell you that assumption isn't required.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I think it can be interpreted as belittling or diminishing the persecution of Jewish people by comparing it to people disagreeing with their views.

I'm sure it could be interpreted like that. But, IMHO, that is not indicative of hate, hostility or malice being targeted at the Jewish.. it seems like a reach, and seemingly in many cases on Twitter, one that's being made not because it's clear, or obvious, or intentional, or inherently offensive, but because of the person that shared the image, and things she's said previously.

A person's decisions, to violate the law, to perpetuate violence, etc. immoral behavior, is being likened to, in this case, an ethnicity (I think not so much a religion). I can see how the ethnicity could be besmirched by this.

Where does it say that? It doesn't even say Republicans, let alone the law breaking ones, it just refers to political views, and even if someone did take offence, it doesn't look to me like it was anything intentionally aimed at besmirching the Jewish.

What's the public's reaction?

To label her comments as anti-semitic and call for #FireGinaCarano based on that.

It is, in my opinion, a re-tweet (a re-tok? I don't know what it's actually called), which was deleted (and therefore mostly only seen thanks to other people sharing it), of a post made by someone else, containing a quote, that at worst could be interpreted as anti-semitic, or more likely - just isn't a great analogy. I do not see that as warranting a #FireGinaCarano campaign.

I'm not a particular Carano fan, I'm not even that bothered as a Star Wars fan, and I'm certainly not a Republican. I'm not crying "Cancel Culture", and my reasons for potentially cancelling my Disney+ subscription entirely revolve around the release dates for 'The Bad Batch', 'Kenobi' and 'The book of Boba Fett', I'm not confusing freedom of speech and freedom from consequence... what I am doing is questioning if that which the consequences have been levied against is being fairly portrayed, or is just portrayed in a such a manner so as to get a specific result... I believe it's the latter, I understand if you disagree.

 

[Danoff]

Another zinger in a similar vein:

Yes let's have exactly the same standards for news editorials that we do for family-oriented television stars.

 

[Danoff]

Where does it say that? It doesn't even say Republicans, let alone the law breaking ones,

What group is primarily concerned about being persecuted by the government right now?

The republican party right now is essentially a law breaking party. I understand that some republicans might take issue with that, but when your leadership does/says something as consistently as that organization has, one has to come to that conclusion.

it just refers to political views, and even if someone did take offence, it doesn't look to me like it was anything intentionally aimed at besmirching the Jewish.

Yea I don't think it was intended to be read that way. Doesn't mean it won't come off that way accidentally. For example, people can be racist even without trying.

To label her comments as anti-semitic and call for #FireGinaCarano based on that.

Some of the public is definitely not having that reaction. Some of the public is opposed to that reaction. So I'm not sure you can call that the public's reaction so much as just, a reaction.

It is, in my opinion, a re-tweet (a re-tok? I don't know what it's actually called), which was deleted (and therefore mostly only seen thanks to other people sharing it), of a post made by someone else, containing a quote, that at worst could be interpreted as anti-semitic, or more likely - just isn't a great analogy. I do not see that as warranting a #FireGinaCarano campaign.

I can see why comparing treatment of republicans to nazi germany might result in a #FireGinaCarano campaign.

what I am doing is questioning if that which the consequences have been levied against is being fairly portrayed, or is just portrayed in a such a manner so as to get a specific result... I believe it's the latter, I understand if you disagree.

I think a decent portion of the world is done with reading things as technically closely as possible and is ready to see the intended meaning and context. I think the meaning is clear enough, in this case, to consider her to be wacky and worth letting go of.

 

[UKMikey]

I'm sure it could be interpreted like that. But, IMHO, that is not indicative of hate, hostility or malice being targeted at the Jewish.. it seems like a reach, and seemingly in many cases on Twitter, one that's being made not because it's clear, or obvious, or intentional, or inherently offensive, but because of the person that shared the image, and things she's said previously.

I don't think extrapolating someone's motivation based on past opinions makes it a reach. Why should she get the benefit of the considerable doubt for this tweet when she doesn't for the others? Painting her as a victim of misinterpretation seems... disingenuous... to me, to say the least.

 

[huskeR32]

I don't think extrapolating someone's motivation based on past opinions makes it a reach. Why should she get the benefit of the considerable doubt for this tweet when she doesn't for the others? Painting her as a victim of misinterpretation seems... disingenuous... to me, to say the least.

I'm far from being pro-Carano in this situation - on balance it seems like she had been given plenty of leash, and she still chose to hang herself with it. Nobody to blame but herself.

However, I think @MatskiMonk is probably correct here. I don't think she meant anything malicious towards anybody. I think that she probably has, like many Repubs/conservatives, gotten so intoxicated on their current blend of narcissism and persecution complex, that she was simply blind to how tasteless it was to draw comparisons to the victims of the Holocaust. I think her comment was 100% about "poor me," and 0% about anybody else, positive or negative.

Stunningly myopic and untethered from reality, yes, but not really surprising when you consider the current conservative mind.

--

Where does it say that? It doesn't even say Republicans, let alone the law breaking ones, it just refers to political views, and even if someone did take offence, it doesn't look to me like it was anything intentionally aimed at besmirching the Jewish.

Come on man, we don't need to play the "she never actually said the word 'Republican'" game. It's obvious what she meant.

 

[longshot1314]

@TexRex it is a bit of oxymoron for cancel culture to decry and then promote, though what else can people do if they disagree with a decision to cancel someone? Also with regards to Hidalgo and Star Wars Theory, SWT was streaming the season 2 finale of the Mandolorian and cried during Luke's appearance. SWT had said in the past the inspiration and role Luke played in him getting through cancer. Hidalgo basically mocked him saying "emotions aren't for sharing", and there was one or two other follow up tweets that were subsequently deleted. Hidalgo was requested by Disney to contact SWT directly but that seemed to be the full extent of action taken in response to that on Disney's end, and Hidalgo has had a history of being toxic towards fans. This a big part of why I'm fired up over the whole situation is because that was clear incidence of a personal attack by an employee whereas all of Gina's positions were never direct at anyone specific and neither did she seemingly participate in harassment. Also needless to say Disney has a pretty terrible track with respect to actually backing up their views given the situation with the filming of Mulan in regards to the Muslim Camps in China, or how they treated John Boyega in the sequel trilogy. I was also just shown another tweet by Disney producer Jack Morrissey where he explicitly said he'd like to throw the kids of MAGA supporters in a woodchipper.

@UKMikey referring to something as "Republican talking points" is completely subjective and does not make it true. It persistently gets thrown around to justify hate and divisiveness and to dismiss criticism. The right certainly has problems and issues but this gets used far too frequently to discredit opinions when something disagrees with a person's political view.

 

[Danoff]

It's kinda fun to watch the republicans go full cancel culture on the entire world - slowly isolating themselves from reality.

Mainstream Media? Nazis
Other Republicans? Traitors
Goodyear? Nazis
Fox news? Traitors
Bill Barr? Traitor
Pence? Traitor
Congress? Traitors
Newsmax? Traitors
Facebook? Nazis
Twitter? Nazis
Police? Nazis
Disney? Nazis

The world just keeps getting smaller. The problem is with everyone else, everyone who is not Trump. All media outlets, virtually all companies (they can still get chicken sandwichs and pillows, for now), most politicians, many of their friends, at least some of their family, all having to be cancelled.

At some point you realize the problem is you (and Trump) right?

 

[MatskiMonk]

Come on man, we don't need to play the "she never actually said the word 'Republican'" game. It's obvious what she meant.

I'm not playing that game, and yes it's reasonable to conclude that the image she reposted was done to portray people with her political beliefs as being on the receiving end government fueled division. Which in itself is stupid given the actions of the government she appears to have supported.... but to conclude that this not only condones criminal actions, but intentionally likens them to the Jewish that suffered at the hands of Nazi's and their propaganda, is in my opinion a step further than simply reading between the lines.

disingenuous

This works both ways. I don't think "oh c'mon, we know what she reeeealllly meant", is much more sincere frankly. She pissed off the trans community and people actively sympathetic towards it, then she pissed off sane people with her opinions on Covid mitigation measures, and now, what I would consider to be a largely forgettable deleted retweet is being made out to be more than it is because people that didn't get their #FireGinaCorano wish those two times want another shot.

I think a decent portion of the world is done with reading things as technically closely as possible and is ready to see the intended meaning and context.

I'm not keen on this scenario, especially not with Twitter-esque Groupthink mentality being the jury on what the intended meaning and context reeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaallly was, seems to get too close to trial by popularity for me.

 

[Danoff]

I'm not keen on this scenario, especially not with Twitter-esque Groupthink mentality being the jury on what the intended meaning and context reeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaallly was, seems to get too close to trial by popularity for me.

She has used social media before.

 

[longshot1314]

"When the first link of the chain is forged, the first speech censored, thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged." - Jean-Luc Picard

 

[TexRex]

Yes, gang culture. Which the black-Caribbean community is drawn to in higher amounts for a variety of reasons.

The first step to solving a problem is acknowledging there is one.

Target what makes those of black-Caribbean descent want to join a gang. Set up interventions.

When I'm talking about problems with knife crime in the black community I'm saying we need to address that intelligently. For example. in London there are efforts to get youngsters into boxing to teach them discipline and steer them away from gangs. It would be idiotic to focus their efforts on Chinese kids as the problem isn't there.

Wholly unsurprising you'd completely disregard the thrust of the solicitation to consider gang culture as correlating to those who perpetrate violent acts better than ethnicity.

@TexRex it is a bit of oxymoron for cancel culture to decry and then promote, though what else can people do if they disagree with a decision to cancel someone?

What?

Also with regards to Hidalgo and Star Wars Theory, SWT was streaming the season 2 finale of the Mandolorian and cried during Luke's appearance. SWT had said in the past the inspiration and role Luke played in him getting through cancer. Hidalgo basically mocked him saying "emotions aren't for sharing", and there was one or two other follow up tweets that were subsequently deleted.

So he mocked someone for having an emotional response to something. The person he mocked happens to be a cancer survivor.

While what he actually did is plenty distasteful, especially if he had a hand in crafting the material that elicited the emotional response, it's a wild misrepresentation to say that he mocked a cancer survivor, even if it could be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he knew this individual is a cancer survivor. This misrepresentation is deceitful.

At some point you realize the problem is you (and Trump) right?

 

[Danoff]

"When the first link of the chain is forged, the first speech censored, thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged." - Jean-Luc Picard

...which does not describe political correctness.

 

[longshot1314]

@TexRex, difference is Hidalgo already had a track record with making disparaging remarks about fans, Theory has a channel that's been around for years so it can be interpreted that he know exactly what he was doing. Hidalgo also has no ties to the Mando, as far as I'm aware he's tied with storygroup whose members have effectively been throwing tantrums over the Mando and Luke's appearance being far more well received than their project 'The High Republic.' Also spending some time thinking of it and adding a beer for thought, I do think there's a bit of distinction to be made between cancel culture and boycotting. Cancel culture is focusing on getting someone you don't like taken off something you like, whereas a boycott is a response to not agreeing with a decision that a company makes and make it known to them by not giving them money. It is a bit destructive as a response but personally with everything that's happened with Disney Star Wars I'd rather see the franchise be left alone than to continue to dismantle it, and I can say the same with Star Trek and Dr. Who

 

[huskeR32]

but to conclude that this not only condones criminal actions, but intentionally likens them to the Jewish that suffered at the hands of Nazi's and their propaganda, is in my opinion a step further than simply reading between the lines

She's either being anti-Semitic, or she's comparing conservatives to Holocaust victims. If it's the former, then sure, she's not condoning criminal actions, she's just being a hateful bigot.

But it's got to be one or the other. Otherwise, what possible reason would she have for posting the image?

EDIT:

@longshot1314 You're completely missing the point. TexRex is not debating with you about Hidalgo, or what Hidalgo did or didn't do or say.

TexRex is objecting to your summarizing the event as "Hidalgo mocked a cancer survivor." Hidalgo almost certainly had no idea the fan was a cancer survivor, and even if he somehow knew, that fact had nothing to do with what Hidalgo did or said. You're just throwing it in there in an attempt to emotionally manipulate the argument. It's disingenuous.