Agreed. And for a very stupid reason. I thought, when they brought back Luke Skywalker, that Disney was trying to make amends for the flaming garbage pile that was the sequel trilogy but the hype for Luke's return has barely died down and they are already back to their dirty tricks. Hit Disney where they live and #CancelDisneyPlus. If you find you simply can't live without WandaVision and whatever other crap they're serving up, pull a Jack Sparrow and head to the Pirate's Bay. Just don't give them your money.

Even though this reportedly has been going on for a while, I've only seen a smidgen of the stuff attributed to her (in an article); and I'm not offended. Maybe that’s because none of it “stuck to me"; or because I did not happen upon any of the horrific(?) material.

So, I'm without a "GOOD IDEA/BAD IDEA" opinion here.

Anyway…

I thought she was great in the role. I especially like her because she looks, acts, and carries herself like someone to be reckoned with. I get so tired of those superwomen, who look as if they’d be severely challenged by a five-miles-per-hour wind, lifting trucks with their bare hands.

Sorry to see her go.

As for cancelling "Disney+": They haven't offended me enough either...yet.

Maybe it is that the reasons for firing her showed the incredible hypocrisy of Disney here since ;

a) Pedro Pascal tweeted far more offensive things such as equating Trump voter with Nazis a couple of months ago and a post with a photo of a concentration camp reading Germany 1944 and picture presenting to be the US 2018 with a picture of immigrant children in a cell (which actually was a photo from a refugee camp in Palestine).And the often mentioned cages in the US are actually a product of the Obama/Biden administration.

b).Or the fact that Disney made John Boyega so small on the Force Awakens poster for China because China doesn't like black people.

c) the fact that an executive of Lucasfilm posted a tweet where he suggested that children of Trump supporters with MAGA hats should be put in the wood chipper (hat first)

d)That a couple of weeks ago Disney publicly spoke out against bullying of Krystina Arielle without even mentioning Gina being harassed on social media for the last 6 months by the SJW mob btw the same Krystina Arielle posted several actual racist tweets about white people which caused her to get harassed in the first place.

e) The fact that Disney thanked a certain Chinese province for letting them film Mulan there at a stone throw away from and actual concentration camp were a specific Muslim minority is slowly being exterminated.To name but a few

Do you need any more reasons not to cancel Disney +? in fact by firing/canceling her they actually proved the exact point Gina was making in the Tweet

What I dont get is she gets fired for a couple tasteless tweets that she took down but the are still not firing Ruin Johnson after fighting multiple times with real fans and insulting paying customers.

Or the fact that several people at Disney made far more offensive tweets and Disney actually supports them.

I love how Disney wants to act the Arbiter of Morality and they act like they care about Social Justice. But they are fine with thanking China for letting film near a concentration camp where Uyghur Muslim are being mistreated. I watched both season of Mando without giving Disney a dime. They don't deserve my money. I dont agree with everything Gina said on twitter. But i don't think she should be fired over her opinions. Not when other Disney employees said far worse and kept there job. And Disney has no right to claim they care about morality or justice anymore.

@mcse2000ca said:

What I dont get is she gets fired for a couple tasteless tweets that she took down but the are still not firing Ruin Johnson after fighting multiple times with real fans and insulting paying customers.

Because Ruin worships at the same political altar as Disney/KK does (as does Pedro), Gina doesn't so they wanted her gone. If Gina was a conservative but had TDS they probably wouldn't have fired her.

I'm by no means a conservative but Gina was 100% right, if you don't bend the knee to the leftist mob they will cast you out.

It's been 10 months, are you still boycotting?

Yes,especially since last month Ped(r)o Pascal took to Twitter attacking Kyle Rittenhouse and calling him a murder when he was declared innocent and acting in self defense at his trial when the amount of evidence proving his innocence was staggering.Also Ped(r)o felt the need to defend the two casualties who both were previously convicted criminals. One a wife beater and multiple violent offender and the other a convicted pedophile who was guilty of raping and molesting under age children and also had a history of prior violent convictions. And still they haven't fired him so it's pretty obvious Hollywood is were the pedophiles roam.

@Nexus71 said:

Yes,especially since last month Ped(r)o Pascal took to Twitter attacking Kyle Rittenhouse and calling him a murder when he was declared innocent

He was found "not guilty", which is not the same as "innocent." OJ was found not guilt too! Yet, people seem to have difficulty accepting that verdict, and still call him a murderer even though, amazingly, no one can say they saw him do it. Go figure.

One a wife beater and multiple violent offender and the other a convicted pedophile who was guilty of raping and molesting under age children and also had a history of prior violent convictions.

That's irrelevant. Kyle Rittenhouse was not an executioner acting on a death sentence handed down by the courts. And even if those crimes were punishable by death, they were never sentenced as such in a court of law. Rittenhouse was no agent of the court.

He was a civilian who put himself in harm's way and created the scenario in which he then choose to defend himself.

In another court with a less biased judge (those proceedings were a travesty, might as well have been the Dred Scott judge), it would've been made clear that one can't claim self-defence in circumstances they create - Travis McMichael's defense team tried that crap and the good prosecutor shut that down. Travis could tell you something about that...well , during visiting hours, anyway.

Put himself in harms way? all Rittenhouse did was trying to protect the business (of which one he worked at ) and homes from vandals and looters. The whole violence started when Rittenhouse extinguished a waste container which vandals & hoodlums had put on fire and were trying to ram it into a gasstation. You could argue Kyle isn't a fireman but imagine if that gasstation had gone up in flames and the damage a possible explosion could have caused ,not to mention possible fatalities.Also you can see in camera footage prior to the shooting that the pedophile was deliberately was trying to antagonize the people defending the properties(and Kyle in particular) and was yelling "kill me ,kill me "all the time. If you want to blame someone here blame the mayor of the town and the police who allowed these violent actions to continue without arresting those who committed acts of violence and terrorism prior to the whole shooting incident.Also you can see in the camera footage that Kyle was running away trying to put as much distance between him and them it is only when he was pinned down by the pedo and he was attacking him trying to reach for his gun Kyle fired in the other case Kyle was first hit with a skateboard and he shot him when he was trying to hit him again and the third guy was aiming a loaded gun at Kyle when he shot him in the arm.

But that was not the point I was trying to make with Pedro Pascal my issue is that he went to Twitter to defend the victims and trying to make them some kind of martyrs when both were previously convicted criminals who went out that night to deliberately vandalize or loot other peoples properties When all that Gina Carano did was to take lessons from history and not let the media create an atmosphere of us and them. I was just pointing out the double standards he has when it concerns people who he agrees with or not.

@Nexus71 said:

Put himself in harms way? all Rittenhouse did was trying to protect the business (of which one he worked at ) and homes from vandals and looters.

What a strange world we want to live in - wherein killing is an appropriate response to vandalism, but vandalism is not an appropriate response to killing.

The whole violence started when Rittenhouse

Exactly. "whole violence started when Rittenhouse".

You could argue Kyle isn't a fireman

That's not an argument, it's a fact. Kyle was/is not a fireman. He had no business being there. What business was it of his? The area was nowhere near his house. He went far out of his way.

But that was not the point I was trying to make

Fair enough.

with Pedro Pascal my issue is that he went to Twitter to defend the victims and trying to make them some kind of martyrs when both were previously convicted criminals

Again, their prior record is immaterial here. Rittenhouse doesn't know who they are. His actions are not in response to their prior records; thus, any prior record is no justification for actions Rittenhouse took. Police have been feeding us "known to police" and "has a criminal record" as a justification for bad faith actions for over a century. Now we thoughtlessly parrot this balderdash.

who went out that night to deliberately vandalize or loot other peoples properties

Yeah. Okay. Here's another fact - Rittenhouse wasn't a cop either. So, call the police. And sit his ass home.

I was just pointing out the double standards he has when it concerns people who he agrees with or not.

For double standards, look no further than people who say "Rittenhouse was acquitted, therefore he's innocent!" in one breath, and "OJ was acquitted, but HE's guilty!" in the next.

I've said my piece, you've said yours.

I'll see myself out. Cheers.

@Nexus71 said:

Put himself in harms way? all Rittenhouse did was trying to protect the business (of which one he worked at ) and homes from vandals and looters.

It's pointless arguing. I'll be honest, when I first heard about the case I was told he shot and executed black people. I do a little bit of research and you see that they chased him, they attacked him, he fought back and won, which was his real crime. And the dudes who attacked him were white while he identifies as hispanic, so basically this is a reverse Trayvon Martin where the kid was actually able to defend himself against an armed attacker.

If people are too stupid to look up the video evidence that shows the kid did nothing wrong then nothing you say will change their minds. The circumstances of him having a gun for protection and trying to save a place he worked and cared about doesn't matter, he defending himself against 3 white criminals who identified with a leftist organization and so his life should be ruined, end of.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@Nexus71 said:

Put himself in harms way? all Rittenhouse did was trying to protect the business (of which one he worked at ) and homes from vandals and looters.

What a strange world we want to live in - wherein killing is an appropriate response to vandalism, but vandalism is not an appropriate response to killing.

That was not Rittenhouse's motivation you now make it sound that he went out there with the specific reason to kill these people which is not the case. All he did there was trying to help his boss and other folks protect their homes and businesses from being raided,looted and burned and since the police wasn't doing anything to prevent these terrorists what else could they have done? And by that reasoning you could ask yourself what were the people who got shot doing there in the first place?They weren't black or a a victim of police brutality and the video evidence showed that they weren't protesting either, so the only reason they seem to be there was the to pillage ,burn and and loot other people's property which according to US law is still a criminal act.

The whole violence started when Rittenhouse

Exactly. "whole violence started when Rittenhouse".

So Rittenhouse should have let them lit up a gasstation with the possible destruction and victims that that would have caused? Are you insane? So if someone tries to burn down your house you just let him light up your property without doing anything about? it or at least try to put out the fire before it causes more damage?

You could argue Kyle isn't a fireman

That's not an argument, it's a fact. Kyle was/is not a fireman. He had no business being there. What business was it of his? The area was nowhere near his house. He went far out of his way.

No he was asked by his boss who had his business there therefore Rittenhouse was trying to protect the business he was working at and to protect his job.So it was in Kyle's interest to be there if not to still have a job in the future .And since the authorities weren't doing anything about it what else could these people have done.

But that was not the point I was trying to make

Fair enough.

with Pedro Pascal my issue is that he went to Twitter to defend the victims and trying to make them some kind of martyrs when both were previously convicted criminals

Again, their prior record is immaterial here. Rittenhouse doesn't know who they are. His actions are not in response to their prior records; thus, any prior record is no justification for actions Rittenhouse took. Police have been feeding us "known to police" and "has a criminal record" as a justification for bad faith actions for over a century. Now we thoughtlessly parrot this balderdash.

How about the individuals who got shot don't they have a certain responsibility ? Some of them due to the fact that they were under probation shouldn't have been there at all .And it is them who attacked Rittenhouse not the other way round So if somebody attacks you you don't have a right to defend yourself even when struck or threatened with a weapon (the skateboard and gun )? If in stead of parroting what the access media have been feeding you had watched the actual video footage of what happened you can clearly see Kyle was only defending himself when he was under threat . Watch what happens in the footage of the guy being shot in the arm when he points his gun down Rittenhouse also has his riffle pointing down it is only when he aims his gun at Kyle that Kyle fires at him.The point again was not about character but about the fact that Pascal made his comments without checking out the facts. He tried to vilify a person with no prior convictions over two persons (whom he portrays as saints) who had several prior convictions and were out there with the specific intend to pillage, plunder and burn other people's property(and yes the were criminals since they were busy committing criminal acts prior to them being shot) .

But then again you should ask yourself why does Disney fire a woman who had a link to an article discussing the role of the pre-War German media who were responsible for creating an image of the Jews being an enemy to the German state and how the German people were conditioned into hating them and how that made them do the terrible things they did to the Jews. All she was doing was warn people of the role of media and that the current US media were doing similar things in creating this us vs them mentality. While Pascal promotes his sympathies for convicted criminals who promote the actions of vandalism,pillage ,looting and destruction doesn't even get a reprimande from Disney.

who went out that night to deliberately vandalize or loot other peoples properties

Yeah. Okay. Here's another fact - Rittenhouse wasn't a cop either. So, call the police. And sit his ass home.

The whole point of them being there was that the police wasn't doing anything about the looting and destruction if they had done their jobs none of this would have happened. These people were basically forced to take matters into their own hands because the authorities weren't doing their jobs which is why I hold them mainly responsible for what happend not Kyle Rittenhouse.

I was just pointing out the double standards he has when it concerns people who he agrees with or not.

For double standards, look no further than people who say "Rittenhouse was acquitted, therefore he's innocent!" in one breath, and "OJ was acquitted, but HE's guilty!" in the next.

The reason O.J was acquitted was for an entirely different reason than Rittenhouse where the evidence was overwhelmingly in Rittenhouse's favor so based on the evidence Rittenhouse is innocent of murder. All he did was defend himself when he was being chased and attacked by three criminals(and they were criminals since they were there to loot and destroy other people's property as the video evidence showed)

I've said my piece, you've said yours.

I'll see myself out. Cheers.

At any rate, hey, if you want to cancel Disney+, by all means, go right ahead, no one's stopping you!

Trusting that all of you who are cancelling Disney+:

a) are now new members of cancel culture and won't cry about it anymore;

b) won't be watching or commenting on Disney productions anymore.