Gina Carano is No Longer Cara Dune... Fortunately

[Zarex]

So according to you, someone cannot be sexually harassed by someone "lower in the cast totem pole"? What kind of logic is that? More over, why are you focused on simply the two actresses. Do you think they were there by themselves?

I was trying to create a distinction between what Pratt did one time and the ongoing awfulness of Harvey Weinstein and Melissa Benoist's abusive husband. Both were in positions of power over their victims. Pratt was not.

I'll ask you again, what was he disciplined or, if not sexual harassment?

Inappropriate on set activity that fell shy of sexual harassment by virtue of it being a one time event and non-sexual in nature. Play On!

 

[Donner]

Plus she's still on Twitter and Instagram. "Big tech" hasn't banned her. Disney just let go of a problematic employee.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Plus she's still on Twitter and Instagram. "Big tech" hasn't banned her. Disney just let go of a problematic employee.

This is very important to note. She still has her platform. How she uses is what lost her a job at Disney. Which again, they have every right to do.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I was trying to create a distinction between what Pratt did one time and the ongoing awfulness of Harvey Weinstein and Melissa Benoist's abusive husband. Both were in positions of power over their victims. Pratt was not.



Inappropriate on set activity that fell shy of sexual harassment by virtue of it being a one time event and non-sexual in nature. Play On!

First, having a leverage over another party is not necessary for harassment. Not at all.

Second, showing your penis automatically makes it sexual.

Third, where in the world did you get that sexual harassment cannot be done in one instance?

 

[Schlosser85]

I mean it depends. If she signed a contract regarding what she does offscreen, then she absolutely can get fired for violating those terms. If she didn't agree with the terms in the first place, that's what lawyers are for.

And I can almost guarantee that Disney has a contract for social media use.

I was just talking my own personal opinion, not legally speaking. I'm sure they do, and that's their right to protect themselves.

 

[writer0327]

What is your point exactly? Her false equivocating to try and deflect the issue with her and her beliefs does not what they are. She supports a fascist. She follows a lot of bigots and fasicist online. She likes and retweets their garbage, and this was another example of that. Do you read the post she likes and retweets? This isn't one comment and arguing that you should be allowed to harass and abuse other people while invoking the holocaust is gross. That you are trying to act like the point of the post was somehow profound when she supports TRUMP and made excuses for the attempted coup does not change that.

First off, I personally consider ALL invocations of the holocaust are gross, because there is no situation that is comparable to that. But it is acceptable for half of the political spectrum to use that invocation at their pleasure. It just seems when it was suggested that the other side might be operating by the same Nazi playbook, it becomes a problem. Not that pointing out hypocrisy ever proves anything.

Again, its the hallmark of tribalism.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

This is very important to note. She still has her platform. How she uses is what lost her a job at Disney. Which again, they have every right to do.

Good point. They aren't forced to renew her contract simply because she has the right to preach bigotry.

 

[flickchick85]

I was trying to create a distinction between what Pratt did one time and the ongoing awfulness of Harvey Weinstein and Melissa Benoist's abusive husband. Both were in positions of power over their victims. Pratt was not.

Then you completely missed the point of my post, which was that people joking about an incident on a talk show does not automatically mean they’re ok with it. Also, I might be wrong but I think Pratt’s the one who turned it into a talk show joke in the first place. Which, if true, puts his co-workers in the uncomfortable spot of having to go along with the joke or looking like a wet blanket.

If he was reprimanded by NBC brass for this, that usually means someone who was there was uncomfortable enough with what transpired to report it to them in the first place.

 

[Holy Slapper]

John Campea went at length about this. He said he'd heard from a very reliable source that Disney/Lucasfilm, with her agent company UTA, told her to shut up on social media in November and prepared the statement that she talked with Pedro Pascal and realized she didn't know enough or whatever it was. She didn't so that gave Lucasfilm and UTA the right to let her go.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

First off, I personally consider ALL invocations of the holocaust are gross, because there is no situation that is comparable to that. But it is acceptable for half of the political spectrum to use that invocation at their pleasure. It just seems when it was suggested that the other side might be operating by the same Nazi playbook, it becomes a problem. Not that pointing out hypocrisy ever proves anything.

Again, its the hallmark of tribalism.

There are literal Nazis on the right. Literal as in actual Nazis. Trump is a literal fascist. That is why it is appropriate.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Good point. They aren't forced to renew her contract simply because she has the right to preach bigotry.

Exactly. Especially in the case of an employee who is making the company look bad. Now, we can argue whether or not we personally feel like Disney should police social media and if they should fire based on it. It is a discussion we can have, but regardless if you agree with it or not, that doesn't change that Disney has no obligation to keep an employee they think hurts the company. Whether it be Gina, James Gunn, Rosanne, or whoever.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Exactly. Especially in the case of an employee who is making the company look bad. Now, we can argue whether or not we personally feel like Disney should police social media and if they should fire based on it. It is a discussion we can have, but regardless if you agree with it or not, that doesn't change that Disney has no obligation to keep an employee they think hurts the company. Whether it be Gina, James Gunn, Rosanne, or whoever.

Welcome to capitalism!

 

[MilkmanDan]

You find it my ability to find sexual harassment disturbing, do you? Well, I guess I am in the same sorry state as the entire frikkin' cast and crew of Parks & Rec. Pratt screwed up in a one time incident, was called out, and as far as we know never did it again. I think calling this sexual harassment is a bit much as I don't believe anyone involved considered this incident to be of a sexual nature. It was a goofy man child pulling a goofy gag.

I'm kinda inclined to agree with this. Pratt was out of line, but the context makes me think that he probably meant no harm and had neither sexual nor abusive motives. It's a very different situation from most work places. I mean, Pratt was almost naked already wearing only a modesty pouch or whatever they're called. It's a very different situation than what most of us experience at the workplace. I believe pranks involving nudity aren't entirely unheard of in that world. I definitely remember Phoebe Waller-Bridge of Fleabag-fame admitting to doing something quite similar. It's a good thing that we're more critical about that kind of behaviour, but I don't think Chris Pratt should be judged like he's some creep who just gratuitously whipped it out to shock his co-workers.

 

[Donner]

Exactly. Especially in the case of an employee who is making the company look bad. Now, we can argue whether or not we personally feel like Disney should police social media and if they should fire based on it. It is a discussion we can have, but regardless if you agree with it or not, that doesn't change that Disney has no obligation to keep an employee they think hurts the company. Whether it be Gina, James Gunn, Rosanne, or whoever.

I'm sure they have contracts regarding social media use. I would think by now, most companies do. I know there are some distinctions between posting as a private person and posting on behalf of the company or naming it.

Like if you say "I work for Disney and they all hate the Jews" then you've created a problem for the company specifically vs. saying "I hate all the Jews" but not referencing the company. One is most definitely a fireable offense, the other is what people get up in arms about. There is also a grey area when someone doesn't mention the company, but they have where they work on their profile. This is part of the reason why I hate LinkedIn.

But it seems like Disney has very strict rules regarding its employees. They managed to keep Miley Cyrus' true personality under wraps until she turned 18. I have no doubt that Gina's contract was specific in her social media use.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I'm kinda inclined to agree with this. Pratt was out of line, but the context makes me think that he probably meant no harm and had neither sexual nor abusive motives. It's a very different situation from most work places. I mean, Pratt was almost naked already wearing only a modesty pouch or whatever they're called. It's a very different situation than what most of us experience at the workplace. I believe pranks involving nudity aren't entirely unheard of in that world. I definitely remember Phoebe Waller-Bridge of Fleabag-fame admitting to doing something quite similar. It's a good thing that we're more critical about that kind of behaviour, but I don't think Chris Pratt should be judged like he's some creep who just gratuitously whipped it out to shock his co-workers.

"Your honor, I meant no harm and had no sexual nor abusive motives when I mentioned my boss had nice breasts".

The idea that pranks involving nudity not be entirely unheard of in Hollywood, is no different then anywhere else. It is not unheard in any field. There are plenty of stories about such things, from working at a fast food restaurant to working at the Whitehouse. It is also why workplace sexual harassment is off the charts. The normalization of such actions.

As to Pratt's character. This is but one instance of how awful of a human being he is. But I am sure when he abandoned that dog, he meant it no harm, so clearly, not an animal abuser.

 

[Sithborg]

This is very important to note. She still has her platform. How she uses is what lost her a job at Disney. Which again, they have every right to do.

Well, most of her platforms. Don't forget, she joined Parler, and we all know the kind of people who joined Parler.

First off, I personally consider ALL invocations of the holocaust are gross, because there is no situation that is comparable to that. But it is acceptable for half of the political spectrum to use that invocation at their pleasure. It just seems when it was suggested that the other side might be operating by the same Nazi playbook, it becomes a problem. Not that pointing out hypocrisy ever proves anything.

Again, its the hallmark of tribalism.

The right calls the left nazis all the time. Generally speaking, they aren't called to be fired or resign when they compared big government to nazis or attempt to rewrite history by calling nazis a leftist organization. Mostly, the response is to call them dumb. Usually pretty similar to what the right does when we call them nazis. Hell, Godwin's Law and all that, nazi references are inevitable. However, it goes a step further when you start going directly into the holocaust and what was done to the victims. I know I have seen plenty of complaints from jews about comparisons of what the various things the US have done to nazi germany. And I think reality supports one comparison over another.

Welcome to capitalism!

The greatest irony of them all. The side that worships unfettered capitalism faces the backlash of unfettered capitalism. Much like with democracy, they will abandon that before they abandon conservatism.

 

[Zarex]

First, having a leverage over another party is not necessary for harassment. Not at all.

Second, showing your penis automatically makes it sexual.

Third, where in the world did you get that sexual harassment cannot be done in one instance?

First - Agreed! But if this incident took place on "The Chris Pratt Show" starring Chris Pratt I would be more inclined to believe there were sinister intent in Mr. Pratt revealing his trouser snake.

Second - I don't think that's what chubby Pratt was going for, but fine. I agree that the ol' one eyed monster should remain in hiding during all work activities.

Third - A one time incident could certainly be sufficiently egregious to rise to the level of harassment. But I don't believe Pratt showing off Mr. Happy on one occasion rises to that level.

 

[Sithborg]

I'm sure they have contracts regarding social media use. I would think by now, most companies do. I know there are some distinctions between posting as a private person and posting on behalf of the company or naming it.

Like if you say "I work for Disney and they all hate the Jews" then you've created a problem for the company specifically vs. saying "I hate all the Jews" but not referencing the company. One is most definitely a fireable offense, the other is what people get up in arms about. There is also a grey area when someone doesn't mention the company, but they have where they work on their profile. This is part of the reason why I hate LinkedIn.

But it seems like Disney has very strict rules regarding its employees. They managed to keep Miley Cyrus' true personality under wraps until she turned 18. I have no doubt that Gina's contract was specific in her social media use.

I don't think Miley Cyrus is a thing to really compare with. When dealing with Disney's kid talent, I think it is a better comparison to home schoolers. They are raised in a pretty strict environment, so when they break free, they have a tendency to go wild.

And we do know about them trying to control their stars. John Boyega chaffed under Disney's rules. I think there was a parade that he loved to participate in that his handlers told him was too risque.

 

[writer0327]

There are literal Nazis on the right. Literal as in actual Nazis. Trump is a literal fascist. That is why it is appropriate.

That's why I don't like Holocaust comparisons or 9/11 comparisons. Those were horrific tragedies. People use them to invoke fear.

 

[writer0327]

John Campea went at length about this. He said he'd heard from a very reliable source that Disney/Lucasfilm, with her agent company UTA, told her to shut up on social media in November and prepared the statement that she talked with Pedro Pascal and realized she didn't know enough or whatever it was. She didn't so that that gave Lucasfilm and UTA the right to let her go.

Then she knew exactly what she was doing. I'm inclined to believe she wanted to become a symbol of sorts, someone people of her beliefs can rally around.

 

[MilkmanDan]

"Your honor, I meant no harm and had no sexual nor abusive motives when I mentioned my boss had nice breasts".

The idea that pranks involving nudity not be entirely unheard of in Hollywood, is no different then anywhere else. It is not unheard in any field. There are plenty of stories about such things, from working at a fast food restaurant to working at the Whitehouse. It is also why workplace sexual harassment is off the charts. The normalization of such actions.

As to Pratt's character. This is but one instance of how awful of a human being he is. But I am sure when he abandoned that dog, he meant it no harm, so clearly, not an animal abuser.

I don't know what you do for a living, but nudity-involving pranks would have felt out of place in every job I've ever had. For that sort of thing to happen at a theatre or TV/film set where actors sometimes change clothes in front of each other or even work at various levels of undress, seems inherently different.

Edit: He was wrong to do what he did. But I don't think it's fair to completely ignore that he did it in a very different situation than what most of us live/work in.

 

[Sithborg]

Then she knew exactly what she was doing. I'm inclined to believe she wanted to become a symbol of sorts, someone people of her beliefs can rally around.

She joined Parler. She absolutely knew where her fanbase was.

 

[henzINNIT]

Bye Gina, you were mediocre on-screen but really burned brightly on twitter haha.

I'm kinda inclined to agree with this. Pratt was out of line, but the context makes me think that he probably meant no harm and had neither sexual nor abusive motives. It's a very different situation from most work places. I mean, Pratt was almost naked already wearing only a modesty pouch or whatever they're called. It's a very different situation than what most of us experience at the workplace. I believe pranks involving nudity aren't entirely unheard of in that world. I definitely remember Phoebe Waller-Bridge of Fleabag-fame admitting to doing something quite similar. It's a good thing that we're more critical about that kind of behaviour, but I don't think Chris Pratt should be judged like he's some creep who just gratuitously whipped it out to shock his co-workers.

Yeah I'm on a similar train. Is it really beneficial to draw no distinction between Pratt's prank and cases of serious abuse? It is just the kind of labeling that galvanizes people against progress. I think most people understand it's not the right thing to do, but there is nuance to this.

 

[Holy Slapper]

Then she knew exactly what she was doing. I'm inclined to believe she wanted to become a symbol of sorts, someone people of her beliefs can rally around.

She's a prime example of what uncontrolled spread of disinformation can do to people.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

That's why I don't like Holocaust comparisons or 9/11 comparisons. Those were horrific tragedies. People use them to invoke fear.

We are living through a horrific 9/11 size tragedy every single day in the US. Carano continued to post anti-mask conspiracies.