Haha. Keep living in your safe space, then. Also, since you ignored my link that disproved your incorrect view of history, I'm going to clip a section and leave it here for you:

"On 26 September 1983, the nuclear early-warning system of the Soviet Union reported the launch of one intercontinental ballistic missile with 4 more missiles behind it, from bases in the United States. These missile attack warnings were suspected to be false alarms by Stanislav Petrov, an officer of the Soviet Air Defence Forces on duty at the command center of the early-warning system. He decided to wait for corroborating evidence - of which none arrived - rather than immediately relaying the warning up the chain-of-command. This decision is seen as having prevented a retaliatory nuclear attack against the United States and its NATO allies, which would likely have resulted in an escalation to a full-scale nuclear war. Investigation of the satellite warning system later determined that the system had indeed malfunctioned."

There is no need to go through anything with a fine toothed comb. It's a pretty cut and dry case. Out of curiosity though, could you please point me in the direction of which journalists / media outlets you believe embody integrity, so that I can educate myself better?

In comparison to Infowars and their associates, you would have to try real damn hard to find someone with less integrity. 

So... no, then?

I'm not really sure what you are looking for. I generally avoid sourcing opinion/editorial content unless the situation specifically calls for it, which is the type of content which PJW posts. If you are involved in an online discussion, posting someone else's argument doesn't really benefit anyone. If I have previously heard an argument that I agree with, I will just make the argument myself, providing sources as necessary. When sources are called for, I attempt to provide primary sources (ex. Scientific articles or specific pieces of legislation being discussed) and fact based sources (ex. Reuters is usually pretty good about avoiding editorializing). Sometimes it is difficult to find strictly fact based sources, so I will highlight the specific areas of a source that I am utilizing which deal in the facts instead of editorializing. When doing so, I favor print sources over video sources as it is far less time consuming for someone to read it over and parse the relevant information from the whole. 

And he compared what's happening to illegal immigrants to the holocaust not long ago. The holocausts/nazis comparisons are misused in general, it's just another way to dumb the conversation. 

So pretty much nothing happened and the closest we came to actual have real war with the Soviet Union was during the Cuban Missile crisis but thanks for proving my original point anyway.

Also pretty sure those cages were not in America. 

But personally, I don't think the Holocaust comparison is the problematic part.

The problematic part is that it seems like Gina's post is labeling people that disagree with conservatives all as Nazis (quite ironic considering all of the complaints about vilification). That's something that a lot of the Mandalorian's audience is going to take personally, which means they're less likely to support the show.

Meanwhile, Pedro's argument that putting children in cages makes you like Nazis is really only going to be offensive if you're a fan of those policies, which is not going to matter as much to the Mandalorian's target audience. I think other posts of his were far more troubling. He also to my knowledge has less other problematic positions (anti-vax/election was stolen) compared to Gina.

But the bottom line is... saying something that's going to piss off a large part of your audience is antithetical to your job of making people watch the show. It's not surprising that Disney is going to react to that negatively. 

Unfortunately, "the best actor gets the job" has never been the name of the game in Hollywood. It's always been about marketability. Your job depends on making people like you. For about 90% of Hollywood's history, that fact has kept openly lbgt and racial minorities from getting acting jobs. Now that public opinion has shifted, people on the other side are starting to take issue and act like this is a new phenomena. 

Nothing happened?! Something certainly did. We got one of the best German pop songs of all time out of this.

I'm puzzled how this relates to cancel culture in any way though. Seems pretty unreasonable to claim that was the sole or even a main cause of the cold war.

It isn't simply that a comparison was made, it is the substance of the comparison. Comparing American Concentration Camps for Immigrants/Refugees and their children to Nazi Concentration Camps is perhaps a touch extreme, but it isn't too out there of a comparison. Comparing Conservatives being disliked for their shitty opinions to the demonization campaign of the Nazis against the Jews (which led to genocide fyi) is bizarre, and it is fundamentally idiotic to compare criticism for actions and words to demonization of an individual or a group for their immutable characteristics. If you want to make a sounder comparison, pointing to the conservative demonization of Hispanics, Middle Easterners or Homosexuals would be much more apt.