Your title fails to mention the most interesting part: she’s a female psychopath that was caught and convicted of major financial fraud. I would have led with that.

deleted by creator

No, you define it.

Should an employee who advocates for abortion rights be able to be fired because their employer doesn’t like the optics of their statement? Should an employee who vouches for a particular political candidate be able to be fired for it? I think we can both agree that a person who advocates for the genocide of a people should be punished, but where do you draw the line? As much as I don’t really care for corporate interests, there are real consequences for companies that continue to employ people with controversial views; why would they want to continue to employ those people when they could win back public favor by firing them?

I don’t think I could define a line between what’s “accepted” political speech that’s protected against employer reprisal and what’s not. Unless we go old stand-bys, such as calls for violence, which are easy to evade. I’m not suggesting this is an easy or even a possible problem to solve; all I meant was that think employees should be protected from firing for reasonable political statements. What “reasonable” is defined as is a much more complicated question, and I concede I don’t have an answer for it.

Please see my response to the other person who responded to my comment.

https://lemmy.world/comment/25791834

By today’s standards, yes, this seems tame. But keep in mind the context. She had made numerous right-wing and fringe statements before (e.g. questioning the efficacy of COVID masks), and this is basically equalizing the treatment of Jews by the Nazis to people making hateful comments about MAGA. It’s a pretty insane and inappropriate comparison. I will say I think she had a point later, when she argued she was discriminated against because the network hadn’t fired other actors who compared Trump to Hitler. Both statements are similarly disrespectful to the victims of one of the worst atrocities in history (although I would also qualify that they’re not equally disrespectful—Trump does at least admire Hitler and arguably aspires to be him).

I guess I’m saying I can understand why they fired her. Part of me doesn’t agree with it—I think people should be allowed to make political statements outside of a work context without risking their jobs—but with our current societal norms siding with corporate image concerns, this does seem in-line with the norms of that approach. I don’t agree with her statements and think she should have had the right to say them without reprisals, but she also has no right to be surprised at the consequences in my view.

Yes. Yes it is.

Edit: Specifically, she was fired for making the following statements:

The actor continued to say, “Because history is edited, most people today don’t realize that to get to the point where Nazi soldiers could easily round up thousands of Jews, the government first made their own neighbors hate them simply for being Jews. How is that any different from hating someone for their political views?”

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/gina-carano-fired-from-mandalorian-after-social-media-post

IMO, it’s only cultural appropriation if you’re making a shit ton of money off of something you copied from another culture, while the people from that culture that are involved with thing aren’t.

People who get pissed at White people for having dreads are idiots. Same for a Mexican wearing a kilt. Grow up and let people dress how they want.

If you like it, wear a bonnet.

The severely mentally ill have it hard enough.

Many landlords have complained that the program’s paperwork and obligatory inspections are onerous. Legislation passed by Congress this month attempts to address this issue by making participation easier. Mr. Carr said that for large companies like Greystar that market themselves as offering luxury rentals, screening out vouchers can also be a way to exclude low-income tenants.

There it is.

It is the best kind of true: technically.

Why would they do that? That would be like taking responsibility for a previous administration’s fuckery. The best thing the next president could do would be to do everything they can force Red States to improve their education systems so that the next generation grows up able to think critically and have things like good judgment of character.

Not enough of them though. Hence, #leopardsatemyface.

Oh, man, I’m not even going to try to tackle everything that’s wrong with what you just wrote. But, seriously…”lesser men?” LOL.

Banning money lending has historically been about as effective as banning alcohol/drugs, gambling, prostitution, etc. People are going to do it, no matter what, so you might as well make it legal and regulate it well.

I don’t remember any glee in the press on the Iraq war (maybe from Fox, idk, I’ve never watched them much). As for the crack epidemic, that has more to do with the CIA and racism in society at large than it does bias in the media.

Your contention that all the media outlets are controlled by corporate interests and that none of it is accurate is a biased and pessimistic take. I realize a lot of people on Lemmy are anti-capitalist, but you let it skew your vision of reality too much.

Yes, it has. Most American news sources have reported about as accurately on current events as news sources from any other developed nation. The right wing ones (and by relatively recently, I would say it started when Fox News started spewing a deliberately skewed narrative in the 1990s) are a good point of comparison, since they clearly operate on a political mandate, whereas the other mainstream outlets are far better about just reporting the news.

Maybe not quite what you were looking for, but my first year in college, some students held a “Love Your Body” parade, which involved students marching around campus completely nude. Of course, the only people who participated were those most people probably would have passed on seeing naked. Just a whole bunch of folks with body image issues (mostly women, but a few men too) and way too much courage. Bizarre.

That is a naïve take. Press organizations in the U.S. have always been private because Americans have historically been very suspicious of the government and wouldn’t trust it to report the news in an unbiased fashion. Private media has worked very well for America for most of its history. It’s only been relatively recently that right-wing rich people have started creating right-wing media sources that skew reality to the extent we see nowadays. And it’s still mainly right-wing publications being the bad actors. Thats why right-wingers are so keen on installing conservative CEOs and having companies run by them buying left-wing media organizations. They don’t want good reporting.

Anecdotal experience, admittedly, but I started out thinking this place was better too. And it was, for a time. I wasn’t getting cited or banned for the same types of comments as I was on Reddit. It seemed legitimately better. Then I started disagreeing with people on this platform, and BOOM, comment removals, bans, same as Reddit, just geared towards different political views. I realized that while Reddit protects the mainstream, Lemmy protects leftist views, and in some cases far leftist views. The super-left extremists are largely confined to extremist instances, but Lemmy.world is plenty extreme itself, just in more muted ways.

I consider myself a leftist, but one with an appreciation for moderate-left sensibilities. For example, I support socialist political platforms, but not at the expense of moderate liberal institutions. Sometimes, that’s not okay here. I support Palestinian rights, but objections to calls to destroy Israel will sometimes get you in trouble here. I support gun reform, but if you defend the 2nd amendment in any capacity, you’re liable to get targeted. Lemmy is not a place that defends a middle ground. The fights between communities are between different forms of leftism, but they all lean Left; if you have any centrist views, you’re going to be targeted.

Spoiler alert: it’s not much better here.

Okay, it’s not as bad, but you’ll find plenty of over-strict civility rules and political bias in moderators. Reddit is just further down the development chain and perhaps nudged to be a bit more PC due to advertisers. You’ll find the same basic problems here though.