Out of curiosity, do you have a habit of calling the programs available to help people who have become radicalized by extremist Muslim ideology "re-education camps" as well, or is that somehow different? 

Pedro's image didn't compare republicans to nazis or call anyone a crybaby. He was comparing current immigration policies to the holocaust. Which, whether or not is accurate, is a far cry from what you're saying. His post was in June 2018, so what would they be crybabying about? They were riding high. Gina's tweet was not in response to him at all (unless it was a long delayed one). Unless there's another post I'm unaware of.

The irony of complaining how republicans are ok to attack attack and then attacking democrats two seconds later is so thick you can cut it.

So, unless you know of some other thing Pedro said that I'm unaware of, in which case I'll stand corrected, then you're spouting bullshit and making broad negative generalizations about a group (that part is problematic regardless of what other post may exist). And if I were to ban you, which will very likely happen with another post like that, you'll say that you're being targeted arbitrarily because your opinion is different, not because it is demonstrably false (again unless there's something unaware of) and is generalizing and attacking a group of people. 

I believe this is the tweet that is being referenced:

https://boundingintocomics.com/2020/11/07/the-mandalorian-and-wonder-woman-actor-pedro-pascal-compares-donald-trump-voters-to-nazis/

it's a new comparison beyond the one we were already debating.  

Ah. Then I do stand corrected, and apologize for the bullshit allegation. The attacking warning still stands.

I'm curious why all of my points are ignored by the ones ,along a big deal out of this? Is it because they have no answer or because they know the hypocrisy that is on display? Multimillionaires losing private entertainment jobs vs government employees losing teaching jobs and journalists losing jobs should be something anyone can sink their teeth into, yet it's being ignored. That tells me everything is need to know about this thread

Well, here is why I didn't engage you. Please don't take this as a sign that I wish to debate you on any of these points, because, I don't. But, you're coming in telling everyone they're hypocrites, which is kind of flamey, so I'm explaining why I chose not to engage so you can see that maybe people have their reasons and it's not necessarily because they're big ol' hypocrites.

1. I have no idea what your distinction is between the left and liberals is. It made the post confusing to me. I was going to ask what the distinction was, but I figured that was going to lead to a pointless semantic conversation about left wing vs liberal. Your second post made the same distinction but left me more confused, so I think I was smart to trust my gut. 

2. You clearly want to talk about Israel. Which is why you kept going on about it in your first post. And then you interjected, again harping on Israel which neither me or Sales were discussing.

And if you want to talk about Israel, whatever, go make a topic about it. But I, and everyone else in this topic, clicked on it because we wanted to talk about Gina Carano and the situation with her. And you're sort of trying to tie that into a little bit, but it feels like that's just a way to rope people into a debate on Israel.

Bottom line is you're coming into a conversation that's not about Israel, are trying to start a conversation about Israel, and then are calling everyone hypocrites cause they don't want to discuss Israel with you, and would rather talk about what the topic's actually about. And, don't do that.

And, since I imagine you're going to complain about me not wanting to discuss Israel and that being a sign of pro-Israel bias, I'll stop you right there. Cause, there are plenty of important human rights issues that you could be discussing but are not. We all have issues we like discussing or don't, so don't complain if people don't want to talk about the one that you want to. 

3. Your attitude doesn't make me want to engage. This is related to the second point, but honestly, it feels like you're daring people to respond and you have a response all lined up. And, I don't think either that it would be an interesting exchange of ideas or that it'd even be particularly fun in a train wreck sort of way, so I passed. 

4. And when you come in here basically saying "you're stupid to care about this" most people are going to just be all like "nuts to you then". Plenty of people who feel this is important, so might as well talk to them instead.

Those are just my personal interpretations, and why I chose not to engage. Maybe I'm wrong, but I really don't care. I'm just explaining to you the reasons why someone might choose not to get involved. Nobody owes you a response, unless it's relating to something they brought up first. So, instead of calling anyone who doesn't want to talk to you a hypocrite, just make posts that people in the topic would be interested in.

Considering how this decision certainly caused Disney to lose more subscribers from D+ than gain, I fail to see how this is purely monetary. Their stock took a hit immediately following the decision to fire her. They also cancelled the Cara Dune action figure which was either the highest or second highest selling figure in 2020. Explain to me how that makes them more money? And if Disney loses money from their stars having bad political takes on Twitter, how come Pedro Pascal is still employed? If you think that the people in charge of Disney aren't willing to lose a few bucks to virtue signal, YOU are the naive one.

The recent Star Wars trilogy, which became increasingly divisive with each new instalment ended up performing worse with each subsequent release at the box office. I have no doubt in my mind that the trilogy would have made more money if not for the political pandering stuffed into it. The examples are numerous. Most of the rabid extreme-left twitter crowd who "cancel" people they disagree with do not actually consume the products associated with said people. This is pretty much the case in all of these scenarios. Look at the Last of Us Part II, which was (likely) not as successful as the first game, despite having a much larger install base of players on PS4 vs PS3, plus the added benefit of being a sequel vs a new IP.

TL;DR - Companies within the entertainment industry have shown time and time again that they are willing to lose money over social justice pandering. If you haven't figured this out by now, you're clearly not paying attention.

Let's walk through this.

Putting in things that the left wing like will lose you money. That lost money would presumably come from people on the right who did not buy their products... meaning it's the right who is refusing to buy things they disagree with I guess? But despite this, companies are still going to pander to a community who is not going to buy their shit anyway and has no economic influence. Pandering, by definition, means they are disingenuously assuming the position of a group to gain their favor.

Now, let's put this together. Disney is pretending to agree with the rabid left wing extremists who aren't going to buy their products anyway, costing themselves millions of dollars in the process, because... reasons?

XD

Why the fuck would they do that? Cause they want to be able to sit with the cool kids? Or they're afraid they'll be mean on twitter and hurt their widdle feelings? 

Seriously though, if you think Disney is pandering to a group so that they can lose money and there's no rational fiscal reason for doing the shit they're doing, here's what you do. Buy 1 share of Disney stock. Tell a lawyer that you're going to sue Disney for breach of fiduciary duty and you're going to start a derivative lawsuit. You'll become a rich man. Because fucking over your shareholders to impress people on twitter is a violation of corporate law and your shareholders can sue you.

TL:DR- Claiming that a company is risking a lawsuit and burning money to pander to a group that has no economic influence is among the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. And Rise of Skywalker's box office sucked because the movie sucked duck dick.

Nah. It's a bit more complicated - or more simple depending on how you slice it. A company like Disney still makes their statements and decision based mostly on what they think will bring them the most money in the end. And here is the key point: what they think. Anyways, in a controversy like around Gina Carano the company has basically three options: taking one of the two sides of the controversy or remain neutral. So the question for the companies is: which option will lose us the most money (because they will lose money based on the controversy regardless of their choice, there is no money to be made here). It has been shown, that in our current very polarized political climate staying neutral is the worst option. Both sides are unhappy and will take it out on your company. So you have to take one of the two sides. Now, the different controversies are not completely independent. It is not in discussion about thing A, two persons are on the same side, while in discussion about B they on differing sides. It is most likely, that in discussion about A, B, C, D and E the two persons are either always on the same or always on different sides. So for a company it is also important to be consistent in the side you pick, because if you flip-flop you will lose in the end all. So even if Gina Carano is bringing them more money than usual, they have to stick with their guns.

So I'd argue, Disney roots this decision clearly in the assumption what will lose them the least money over time. And that is firing Gina Carano. Will it be the least money losing solution? I don't know, as all these controversies are connected and while firing Gina Carano may hurt them it lines up with other decisions that in the sum may lose them less money. But they also mey have chosen badly (from a businness perspective). That happens, companies do not always make the best decisions. But in this it is also very very complicated to navigate the increasingly polarized controversies.

So it may look like they are willing to lose money for a political agenda, but in reality they probably choose the lesser of two evils (or three including the neutral position) or what they think is the lesser evil. Because staying with Carano may hurt them even more. Clear is only one: these culture wars are ultimatively bad for business.

OK, it's a bit conjecture. Staying neutral often earns you heat from both sides, but I actually don't have data points if it is as bad for the profit side of things. So let's add it to the unsure pile and we still end up with the managers are confronted with multiple bad choices and near to no data which decision will be the worst (to the profits). And actually I don't think that the morals of it all is a big consideration, the companies frame their decisions as moral choices, but I am sure they are side considerations at best. The main point will be: how do we lose the least amount of money.