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.

It's really simple. Pedro Pascal compared Republicans to Nazis that lost WW2, with a picture saying everyone was a crybaby. Gina says, no, Republicans are more like the Jews, the new segment of society that has become socially acceptable to attack. You have to change people's attitudes before the government can do it officially, was the point of her post. She got fired, he did not. Enough said. We all know how the world works. Keep to yourself or the Democrats will be out for your blood. They are intolerant.

It isn't only right wing people that are annoyed or turned off by this. My entire life, I would have identified myself as left wing. That has changed over the last decade as the left wing has lost the plot and radical left wing ideas have become mainstream. I've taken various political compass tests in recent years that have all placed me in the center-left. So I'm not right wing by any means and I think these divisive politics are a major turn off that are ruining many forms of entertainment. It shocks me that you believe there are NO people within the entertainment industry who aren't willing to sacrifice some of their profit in order to make a political statement, as if you believe that all of these people are robots hardwired to view the world through a purely capitalist lens with no personal ideas impacting their decision making.

Do you remember Gillette's catastrophically tone deaf marketing where a company that primarily sells men's shaving equipment thought it would be a brilliant idea to attack men and tell them to "be better"? This brilliant marketing campaign cost the company billions of dollars. Afterwards, the CEO claimed that it was "a price worth paying" in order to make their point.

Moving over to the realm of gaming, let's take a look at Battlefield V. DICE and EA's marketing took a feminist approach, which was criticized heavily within the gaming community, mainly for the unrealistic approach the developer took by having a female amputee solider fighting for the British on the front lines during WWII. Amid the backlash, the CEO of EA had a simple message to their potential buyers of BFV: if you don't like it, don't buy it. Ultimately, the community listened to him and the game underperformed EA's expectations.

TL;DR - Yes, there are people in the world, working for mega corporations who are NOT perfect capitalists and seem perfectly fine with sacrificing some profit in order to send a message. I don't understand how this is even up for debate, given how plainly obvious it is. They say it themselves. lol

It's almost like you are talking about me

I believe it's not that those companies are willing to sacrifice profits to send a message, it's more like they believe their actions will not impact sales and even if it impacts it will pay off in the future as pandering to the radicals will have their brand better valued by society in the long run and will bring more customers. And to be fair I believe what you mentioned are, unfortunately, exceptions.  

It isn't only right wing people that are annoyed or turned off by this. My entire life, I would have identified myself as left wing. That has changed over the last decade as the left wing has lost the plot and radical left wing ideas have become mainstream. I've taken various political compass tests in recent years that have all placed me in the center-left. So I'm not right wing by any means and I think these divisive politics are a major turn off that are ruining many forms of entertainment. It shocks me that you believe there are NO people within the entertainment industry who aren't willing to sacrifice some of their profit in order to make a political statement, as if you believe that all of these people are robots hardwired to view the world through a purely capitalist lens with no personal ideas impacting their decision making.

Do you remember Gillette's catastrophically tone deaf marketing where a company that primarily sells men's shaving equipment thought it would be a brilliant idea to attack men and tell them to "be better"? This brilliant marketing campaign cost the company billions of dollars. Afterwards, the CEO claimed that it was "a price worth paying" in order to make their point.

Moving over to the realm of gaming, let's take a look at Battlefield V. DICE and EA's marketing took a feminist approach, which was criticized heavily within the gaming community, mainly for the unrealistic approach the developer took by having a female amputee solider fighting for the British on the front lines during WWII. Amid the backlash, the CEO of EA had a simple message to their potential buyers of BFV: if you don't like it, don't buy it. Ultimately, the community listened to him and the game underperformed EA's expectations.

TL;DR - Yes, there are people in the world, working for mega corporations who are NOT perfect capitalists and seem perfectly fine with sacrificing some profit in order to send a message. I don't understand how this is even up for debate, given how plainly obvious it is. They say it themselves. lol

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.

Let's make a few points clear. The discussion is about censorship, and I wanna compare it with a situation that I feel is more important and has to do with censorship, and a true violation of free speech. I don't wanna discuss the issue, I wanna discuss why a specific position is forced on government employees lest they lose their jobs. Tell me, which is more dangerous, a multimillionaire actor losing one job because of stupid tweets or journalists and government employees being fired? My point was that people will not talk about actual violations of free speech. Israel is just a convenient example. Another is speaking out against war in the US by Americans where journalists get fired and people  ;ose jobs over it. The issue itself is not my main point, so don't try to steer my discussion that way. 

As for the distinction between left and liberals, liberals are not necessarily left. They can be centre right or centre left. The left are the ones that AdvoCare for universal programs to alleviate the suffering of human beings like universal education or healthcare. And the further left you go, the more unfavourable towards Capitalism you become. Liberals are extreme in their centrism. 

Anyways, my point remains, the discussion is about the nuances of violations of free speech and what people are willing to defend vs what they are willing to ignore because of their biases. I don't think "cancel" culture is all that serious and I haven't seen anyone that talks about the Ginas of the world talk about these other people that were truly censored or their free speech rights violated. 

The best point you made is that of the attitude to engage or not. I might sound arrogant but that's because I am a bit fed up hearing about so called "cancel" culture while ignoring stuff which I feels matters much much more.

I'm sorry, but I just disagree. Kathleen Kennedy and Lucasfilm have driven Star Wars into the ground since her ascension. You'd be hard pressed to find any fan of Star Wars who is happy with the state of the franchise since Disney took over. Yet, she's still there, still making bad decisions, still damaging the brand. Someone earlier in the thread made reference to a Hollywood "cool kids table" which isn't that far from the truth, actually. I've seen far too many examples over the past 5 years of companies exchanging profits for woke points in order to believe that it's just a coincidence that they're making bad judgement calls.

Anyone with two brain cells to rub together know that injecting divisive identity politics into entertainment is going to be divisive. You know it and I know it. So it would be hard for me to believe that marketing managers who work for mega corporations with salaries in the millions do not know it.

 I'm not really interested in arguing any of the points you're bringing up. If I was, I'd have replied in the first place.

I'm also not interested in arguing with whether my assumptions about your posts were correct. I was explaining for your benefit why someone would see the posts and not want to reply, beyond being a hypocrite. 

Not gonna reply any further cause it'd be derailing. But, that's for my part why I didn't choose to engage. Don't assume everyone is a hypocrite because they don't want to respond to you. If someone else wants to respond to your questions, they're free to do so. If not, they're free to not.

The broader issue here is that mainstream conservatives feel they can’t even speak their opinions without fear of losing their jobs and reputation. Whatever you choose to believe, it’s not 50/50 treatment, enter the Pedro/Gina Holocaust comparisons. I’m not talking alt-right opinions, but civil discussion and comparison of ideas between mainstream liberal and conservative beliefs.

Silencing speech via in person/online bullying, mob mentality, and threats to have you fired is the exact antithesis of American values. And the irony is completely lost on the very people that believe they are doing the right thing. If one side feels safe to speak their mind while the other is scared to, you got a problem. It actually took me some courage to have this discussion here, despite me being anonymous. Nevermind the real world, that’s the state of the culture imo.