|
Post by Skaathar on Dec 5, 2020 23:37:57 GMT
Yes, that is bullying. You can try to make it sound as nice as you can, but in the end they're still trying to inflict negative actions on someone based on nothing more than their "opinion". Stating an opinion on social media that doesn't try to hurt anyone (Letitia) is far different from attacking her, calling her names, and trying to get her fired from her job based on said opinion. Now I'm not saying people's actions won't have an impact on their job. But there's a difference between you, as a manager, firing someone because they hurt the reputation of a company and them, as an outsider, attacking someone they disagree with. You are simply reacting to a situation based on its effect on YOU and YOUR company brought about by YOUR employee. THEY are attacking someone who has no direct relation to them whatsoever based on nothing more than a disagreement of opinion. So basically you're saying I can go ahead and verbally abuse any person I want because I have a right to express my displeasure publicly. In this specific situation Letitia does have some influence in actually hurting people. By her retweeting a video that questions vaccines in general and this one specifically without evidence in a pandemic she could sway people not to take the vaccine. Than can not only hurt people who don't take the vaccine but people who can't take the vaccine getting sick. Completely innocent bystanders in all of this. By her endorsing that video she is applying her influence to an opinion that could conceivably kill people. And add fuel to anti-vaxxers. Which has a growing population in young people. Her core fandom. I don't think calling people out on their opinion is bullying. To me who might not be able to take the vaccine because of IBD and Remicade and my 77 year old mother who definitely can't take it because of a bad liver and kidneys, her opinion/the opinion in the video about vaccinations in general and others like it is deadly. I don't think it's bullying for me to respond to her and especially Tomi Arayomi opinions as being ignorant and both are dicks for aligning themselves with the idea that vaccines are some how unsafe. His opinion is they are she led her backing to his opinion by posting the tweet. My opinion on that is they are idiots and should be told so. You absolutely have the right to call someone a dick if you think they are acting like one. That's not verbal abuse. Hell if you think I'm a dick by all means have at it for that opinion. It's not polite and neither is me calling them that, but you have the right to do it. I don't think she should use her influence on young people to do that. That's my opinion. It's just a valid as hers. More so because hers is coming from a place of ignorance. Now I don't condone calling her evil, that she should die, that she's ugly, talentless, or the rest of the other stuff. That to me is bullying, but saying she doesn't have the facts/ignorant that she's being a dick for her opinion to helpless people is not. She is giving a helping hand to people who have given measles a helping hand. That's not bullying. I also think it's not bullying to let Disney know I don't feel her using her platform to influence others in this direction, given to her partially by Disney, (also her natural talent and work ethic) is correct. I would never tell Disney to fire her, but I would express my opinion that I feel she is perpetuating ignorance that could have deadly consequences. The problem with your argument is that you're approaching this situation with your mind already made up that Letitia is in the wrong, and therefore calling her out is justified. I'm approaching this holistically without taking any sides. Because if we take an unbiased approach to the topic, what you're basically saying is that because celebrities carry a certain amount of influence, they should probably not be allowed to state their opinions due to the risk that it might harm some people who follow them blindly. Whether that opinion is about vaccines, voting, rights, dating, diets, working out, etc.., what you're basically saying is that once they state an opinion, the public is now justified in attacking them for that opinion over social media, or calling them names, or making threats, or trying to get them fired from their job. Because in the end you can't pick and choose which comments are justified and which are bullying attacks when it comes to cancel culture. Cancel culture contains an enormous amount of insults, name-calling, humiliating and degrading comments, a whole bunch of other nasty stuff mixed-in with possibly valid criticism. Just to highlight my point: What if Letitia had instead posted a video highlighting the positive effects of vaccines. Would you still say it was justified for people to attack her for that post and try to get her cancelled?
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Dec 6, 2020 1:21:31 GMT
In this specific situation Letitia does have some influence in actually hurting people. By her retweeting a video that questions vaccines in general and this one specifically without evidence in a pandemic she could sway people not to take the vaccine. Than can not only hurt people who don't take the vaccine but people who can't take the vaccine getting sick. Completely innocent bystanders in all of this. By her endorsing that video she is applying her influence to an opinion that could conceivably kill people. And add fuel to anti-vaxxers. Which has a growing population in young people. Her core fandom. I don't think calling people out on their opinion is bullying. To me who might not be able to take the vaccine because of IBD and Remicade and my 77 year old mother who definitely can't take it because of a bad liver and kidneys, her opinion/the opinion in the video about vaccinations in general and others like it is deadly. I don't think it's bullying for me to respond to her and especially Tomi Arayomi opinions as being ignorant and both are dicks for aligning themselves with the idea that vaccines are some how unsafe. His opinion is they are she led her backing to his opinion by posting the tweet. My opinion on that is they are idiots and should be told so. You absolutely have the right to call someone a dick if you think they are acting like one. That's not verbal abuse. Hell if you think I'm a dick by all means have at it for that opinion. It's not polite and neither is me calling them that, but you have the right to do it. I don't think she should use her influence on young people to do that. That's my opinion. It's just a valid as hers. More so because hers is coming from a place of ignorance. Now I don't condone calling her evil, that she should die, that she's ugly, talentless, or the rest of the other stuff. That to me is bullying, but saying she doesn't have the facts/ignorant that she's being a dick for her opinion to helpless people is not. She is giving a helping hand to people who have given measles a helping hand. That's not bullying. I also think it's not bullying to let Disney know I don't feel her using her platform to influence others in this direction, given to her partially by Disney, (also her natural talent and work ethic) is correct. I would never tell Disney to fire her, but I would express my opinion that I feel she is perpetuating ignorance that could have deadly consequences. The problem with your argument is that you're approaching this situation with your mind already made up that Letitia is in the wrong, and therefore calling her out is justified. I'm approaching this holistically without taking any sides. Because if we take an unbiased approach to the topic, what you're basically saying is that because celebrities carry a certain amount of influence, they should probably not be allowed to state their opinions due to the risk that it might harm some people who follow them blindly. Whether that opinion is about vaccines, voting, rights, dating, diets, working out, etc.., what you're basically saying is that once they state an opinion, the public is now justified in attacking them for that opinion over social media, or calling them names, or making threats, or trying to get them fired from their job. Because in the end you can't pick and choose which comments are justified and which are bullying attacks when it comes to cancel culture. Cancel culture contains an enormous amount of insults, name-calling, humiliating and degrading comments, a whole bunch of other nasty stuff mixed-in with possibly valid criticism. Just to highlight my point: What if Letitia had instead posted a video highlighting the positive effects of vaccines. Would you still say it was justified for people to attack her for that post and try to get her cancelled? I think the main difference between me and you is you see cancel culture as a single block with a single agenda. I look at it individuals that share the same opinions. I've never actually posted to a persons job. I have replied as an individual opinion. Just like I'm doing to yours in a public forum. I'm disagreeing with your opinion and I'm bullying you? The only difference between you sharing your opinion and me disagreeing on a this public forum and Letitia expressing her opinion and people disagreeing with hers is she has more people who care what she says. She's a celebrity on a more famous public forum. So the repercussions of her opinion sharing and the people disagreeing with her opinions are magnified as to include people who hire her. The closest to that analogy is if your boss was one of the users on here but rarely came here. But for 50 or 60 people started to disagreeing with you and he happened to noticed or people tagged your boss. Would that be bullying you? No that would people expressing their opinion on what you said. I'm not going into the situation she's wrong. I watched the video and saw her tweet. And based on science she is wrong and so is the guy in the video. And I think it's a dangerous opinion based on that. If she came out saying that vaccines are effective option I wouldn't think her opinion is wrong and wouldn't think it was dangerous. Other people might they would be anti-vaxxers. And if they felt she was wrong expressed their opinion that's perfectly fine. That would be a repercussion of her expressing her opinion. It's the repercussion of any single person at any given time and any given place online or offline. Any time anybody expresses an opinion a repercussion of expressing that opinion is that people might disagree with you and exert the exact same right you just used to express your opinion themselves. Now how that expression of opinion is done does have merit. If you express your disagreement with her opinion. (again just like how she is disagreeing with someone or some groups opinion or in this situation FACTs) in a polite or inpolite way it's still your right. Now if you step it up with vileness it's still expression of your right I wouldn't agree with it, but still there. If you step it up to racial slurs, death threats, or fighting words then you have step up from polite to inpolite, past vile, to criminal. That's a bridge to far. You can condemn the last 3 as wrong that's fine, but to condemn people for expressing their opinion which is exactly what she's doing is being hypocritical. Now if people try to involve future or current employers is dodgy but still in play. Even if no one makes an overt effort to get current or future employers involved. Those companies are going to be watching it anyways. That's how ingrained social media is in society. I've always told friend and family that if you say something online it's equivalent to standing at the largest packed stadium you know with a bullhorn and saying the same thing. If you don't feel comfortable doing that with what you are saying or what that packed stadium would say to you in return don't say it. As they have the exact same right to respond to you as you do to scream at them through a bullhorn. With celebrities it's magnified to just a stadium 100x bigger. I'm not naive I know that there are people that band together and coordinate in situations like this, but the only way you can stop people doing that would be to take the rights away from individuals who aren't banding together. Do you feel comfortable of taking everybodies ability at expressing their opinion because a minority of people band together? I'm not. I'm about keeping peoples right to express their opinion instead of taking it away. The people who originate the opinion and those people or respond.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Dec 6, 2020 2:38:15 GMT
The problem with your argument is that you're approaching this situation with your mind already made up that Letitia is in the wrong, and therefore calling her out is justified. I'm approaching this holistically without taking any sides. Because if we take an unbiased approach to the topic, what you're basically saying is that because celebrities carry a certain amount of influence, they should probably not be allowed to state their opinions due to the risk that it might harm some people who follow them blindly. Whether that opinion is about vaccines, voting, rights, dating, diets, working out, etc.., what you're basically saying is that once they state an opinion, the public is now justified in attacking them for that opinion over social media, or calling them names, or making threats, or trying to get them fired from their job. Because in the end you can't pick and choose which comments are justified and which are bullying attacks when it comes to cancel culture. Cancel culture contains an enormous amount of insults, name-calling, humiliating and degrading comments, a whole bunch of other nasty stuff mixed-in with possibly valid criticism. Just to highlight my point: What if Letitia had instead posted a video highlighting the positive effects of vaccines. Would you still say it was justified for people to attack her for that post and try to get her cancelled? I think the main difference between me and you is you see cancel culture as a single block with a single agenda. I look at it individuals that share the same opinions. I've never actually posted to a persons job. I have replied as an individual opinion. Just like I'm doing to yours in a public forum. I'm disagreeing with your opinion and I'm bullying you? The only difference between you sharing your opinion and me disagreeing on a this public forum and Letitia expressing her opinion and people disagreeing with hers is she has more people who care what she says. She's a celebrity on a more famous public forum. So the repercussions of her opinion sharing and the people disagreeing with her opinions are magnified as to include people who hire her. The closest to that analogy is if your boss was one of the users on here but rarely came here. But for 50 or 60 people started to disagreeing with you and he happened to noticed or people tagged your boss. Would that be bullying you? No that would people expressing their opinion on what you said. I'm not going into the situation she's wrong. I watched the video and saw her tweet. And based on science she is wrong and so is the guy in the video. And I think it's a dangerous opinion based on that. If she came out saying that vaccines are effective option I wouldn't think her opinion is wrong and wouldn't think it was dangerous. Other people might they would be anti-vaxxers. And if they felt she was wrong expressed their opinion that's perfectly fine. That would be a repercussion of her expressing her opinion. It's the repercussion of any single person at any given time and any given place online or offline. Any time anybody expresses an opinion a repercussion of expressing that opinion is that people might disagree with you and exert the exact same right you just used to express your opinion themselves. Now how that expression of opinion is done does have merit. If you express your disagreement with her opinion. (again just like how she is disagreeing with someone or some groups opinion or in this situation FACTs) in a polite or inpolite way it's still your right. Now if you step it up with vileness it's still expression of your right I wouldn't agree with it, but still there. If you step it up to racial slurs, death threats, or fighting words then you have step up from polite to inpolite, past vile, to criminal. That's a bridge to far. You can condemn the last 3 as wrong that's fine, but to condemn people for expressing their opinion which is exactly what she's doing is being hypocritical. Now if people try to involve future or current employers is dodgy but still in play. Even if no one makes an overt effort to get current or future employers involved. Those companies are going to be watching it anyways. That's how ingrained social media is in society. I've always told friend and family that if you say something online it's equivalent to standing at the largest packed stadium you know with a bullhorn and saying the same thing. If you don't feel comfortable doing that with what you are saying or what that packed stadium would say to you in return don't say it. As they have the exact same right to respond to you as you do to scream at them through a bullhorn. With celebrities it's magnified to just a stadium 100x bigger. I'm not naive I know that there are people that band together and coordinate in situations like this, but the only way you can stop people doing that would be to take the rights away from individuals who aren't banding together. Do you feel comfortable of taking everybodies ability at expressing their opinion because a minority of people band together? I'm not. I'm about keeping peoples right to express their opinion instead of taking it away. The people who originate the opinion and those people or respond. If you read back on my posts, I never complained about people merely sharing their opinions and disagreeing with each other. I specifically said I was against cancel culture and the act of people attacking someone online and trying to get them fired from their jobs. That's far different from merely disagreeing with someone. I can go ahead and address each of the other points you raised but it would be useless to do so if you're talking about something completely different from what I had been discussing.
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Dec 6, 2020 2:53:51 GMT
i was hoping she'd be the next black panther?. That was the plan. Who knows at this point, it may be Kevin Hart. It makes sense that alot of Black people are skeptical of vaccines... Tuskegee anyone?..
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Dec 6, 2020 3:07:21 GMT
I think the main difference between me and you is you see cancel culture as a single block with a single agenda. I look at it individuals that share the same opinions. I've never actually posted to a persons job. I have replied as an individual opinion. Just like I'm doing to yours in a public forum. I'm disagreeing with your opinion and I'm bullying you? The only difference between you sharing your opinion and me disagreeing on a this public forum and Letitia expressing her opinion and people disagreeing with hers is she has more people who care what she says. She's a celebrity on a more famous public forum. So the repercussions of her opinion sharing and the people disagreeing with her opinions are magnified as to include people who hire her. The closest to that analogy is if your boss was one of the users on here but rarely came here. But for 50 or 60 people started to disagreeing with you and he happened to noticed or people tagged your boss. Would that be bullying you? No that would people expressing their opinion on what you said. I'm not going into the situation she's wrong. I watched the video and saw her tweet. And based on science she is wrong and so is the guy in the video. And I think it's a dangerous opinion based on that. If she came out saying that vaccines are effective option I wouldn't think her opinion is wrong and wouldn't think it was dangerous. Other people might they would be anti-vaxxers. And if they felt she was wrong expressed their opinion that's perfectly fine. That would be a repercussion of her expressing her opinion. It's the repercussion of any single person at any given time and any given place online or offline. Any time anybody expresses an opinion a repercussion of expressing that opinion is that people might disagree with you and exert the exact same right you just used to express your opinion themselves. Now how that expression of opinion is done does have merit. If you express your disagreement with her opinion. (again just like how she is disagreeing with someone or some groups opinion or in this situation FACTs) in a polite or inpolite way it's still your right. Now if you step it up with vileness it's still expression of your right I wouldn't agree with it, but still there. If you step it up to racial slurs, death threats, or fighting words then you have step up from polite to inpolite, past vile, to criminal. That's a bridge to far. You can condemn the last 3 as wrong that's fine, but to condemn people for expressing their opinion which is exactly what she's doing is being hypocritical. Now if people try to involve future or current employers is dodgy but still in play. Even if no one makes an overt effort to get current or future employers involved. Those companies are going to be watching it anyways. That's how ingrained social media is in society. I've always told friend and family that if you say something online it's equivalent to standing at the largest packed stadium you know with a bullhorn and saying the same thing. If you don't feel comfortable doing that with what you are saying or what that packed stadium would say to you in return don't say it. As they have the exact same right to respond to you as you do to scream at them through a bullhorn. With celebrities it's magnified to just a stadium 100x bigger. I'm not naive I know that there are people that band together and coordinate in situations like this, but the only way you can stop people doing that would be to take the rights away from individuals who aren't banding together. Do you feel comfortable of taking everybodies ability at expressing their opinion because a minority of people band together? I'm not. I'm about keeping peoples right to express their opinion instead of taking it away. The people who originate the opinion and those people or respond. If you read back on my posts, I never complained about people merely sharing their opinions and disagreeing with each other. I specifically said I was against cancel culture and the act of people attacking someone online and trying to get them fired from their jobs. That's far different from merely disagreeing with someone. I can go ahead and address each of the other points you raised but it would be useless to do so if you're talking about something completely different from what I had been discussing. I guess I see both are part of cancel culture though is what I'm saying. I would be part of cancel culture if I replied to her with "I think your are a dick for pushing anti-vaxxer nonsense" I would be seen by Disney as part of the crowd giving her flack. And in something like this I would say most of the people aren't trolls banding together to be mean getting her fired. I would think most people would be people genuinely pissed off at her opinion, but wouldn't mind her getting fired. But in this situation I would be in the same thread for Disney to see how much hate she's getting, so adding fuel to get her fired. So I always include the genuinely pissed off people at something someone said with the people who are trying to get her fired saying similar things. Both would add to her getting fired one would just be overtly doing the other would be ok with her getting fired for her opinion, but not there main goal. So a little more passive. In this situation because i think her opinion is so dangerous I wouldn't mind Disney firing her but wouldn't actively seeking it. I think she needs to know that endangering people is not ok. I guess I miss communication/different idea what cancel culture is in degrees.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Dec 6, 2020 3:32:59 GMT
If you read back on my posts, I never complained about people merely sharing their opinions and disagreeing with each other. I specifically said I was against cancel culture and the act of people attacking someone online and trying to get them fired from their jobs. That's far different from merely disagreeing with someone. I can go ahead and address each of the other points you raised but it would be useless to do so if you're talking about something completely different from what I had been discussing. I guess I see both are part of cancel culture though is what I'm saying. I would be part of cancel culture if I replied to her with "I think your are a dick for pushing anti-vaxxer nonsense" I would be seen by Disney as part of the crowd giving her flack. And in something like this I would say most of the people aren't trolls banding together to be mean getting her fired. I would think most people would be people genuinely pissed off at her opinion, but wouldn't mind her getting fired. But in this situation I would be in the same thread for Disney to see how much hate she's getting, so adding fuel to get her fired. So I always include the genuinely pissed off people at something someone said with the people who are trying to get her fired saying similar things. Both would add to her getting fired one would just be overtly doing the other would be ok with her getting fired for her opinion, but not there main goal. So a little more passive. In this situation because i think her opinion is so dangerous I wouldn't mind Disney firing her but wouldn't actively seeking it. I think she needs to know that endangering people is not ok. I guess I miss communication/different idea what cancel culture is in degrees. Cancel culture is specifically trying to get someone canceled, as in terminated from their job or sponsorships and stuff. That's what I'm specifically talking about. Yes it does include name calling and insult throwing but I was specifically talking about those within the context of trying to cancel somebody. Online slugfests are nothing new and very difficult to control, but cancel culture is an altogether different beast that is seriously getting out of hand.
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Dec 6, 2020 3:36:39 GMT
I guess I see both are part of cancel culture though is what I'm saying. I would be part of cancel culture if I replied to her with "I think your are a dick for pushing anti-vaxxer nonsense" I would be seen by Disney as part of the crowd giving her flack. And in something like this I would say most of the people aren't trolls banding together to be mean getting her fired. I would think most people would be people genuinely pissed off at her opinion, but wouldn't mind her getting fired. But in this situation I would be in the same thread for Disney to see how much hate she's getting, so adding fuel to get her fired. So I always include the genuinely pissed off people at something someone said with the people who are trying to get her fired saying similar things. Both would add to her getting fired one would just be overtly doing the other would be ok with her getting fired for her opinion, but not there main goal. So a little more passive. In this situation because i think her opinion is so dangerous I wouldn't mind Disney firing her but wouldn't actively seeking it. I think she needs to know that endangering people is not ok. I guess I miss communication/different idea what cancel culture is in degrees. Cancel culture is specifically trying to get someone canceled, as in terminated from their job or sponsorships and stuff. That's what I'm specifically talking about. Yes it does include name calling and insult throwing but I was specifically talking about those within the context of trying to cancel somebody. Online slugfests are nothing new and very difficult to control, but cancel culture is an altogether different beast that is seriously getting out of hand. Ok I guess my personal definition was just a little off then. That's my bad. Sorry about that.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Dec 6, 2020 4:24:29 GMT
That was the plan. Who knows at this point, it may be Kevin Hart. It makes sense that alot of Black people are skeptical of vaccines... Tuskegee anyone?.. Back then sure, but the whole vaccine thing is done to death now. Sick of these anti-vaxxers getting everyone else sick.
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Dec 6, 2020 4:39:37 GMT
It makes sense that alot of Black people are skeptical of vaccines... Tuskegee anyone?.. Back then sure, but the whole vaccine thing is done to death now. Sick of these anti-vaxxers getting everyone else sick. i mean yeah but the historical connotation can't be denied.
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Dec 6, 2020 7:04:18 GMT
It makes sense that alot of Black people are skeptical of vaccines... Tuskegee anyone?.. Back then sure, but the whole vaccine thing is done to death now. Sick of these anti-vaxxers getting everyone else sick. Before I found out my Mom can't take a vaccine because of her liver, kidneys and immune system I was trying to come up with Baptist ammo to convince her to get it. Her dumb ass pastor said he wouldn't take it but he isn't saying you guys wouldn't, but he felt it came from a godless place. So I'm going to baptists websites, looking for baptist written articles about it etc. In my searching I came upon a Baptist Pastor in Mayrland I think. That has had a hard fight to get his black congregation to accept it even now. And it's not because of the use of immortal cell lines from fetus used in testing or anything. It's the total mistrust of doctors that still stem from the mistreatment of black people by scientist and doctors going all the way back to Tskegee. It goes further than that though. One of the lines of immortal cells that scientists use is from a Black lady from I think the 60's that had cancer. It was a total accident that some of her samples lived on after her and kept continuing to live and divide. And they never got her consent to use them before she died. Didn't tell the family that they were using her cells for testing after she died. Never compensated them for it until after court cases. Then you also have the treatment that Black People get from actual doctors in hospitals. Where even today misconceptions reign when treating Black people. A good percentage of Doctors coming out of school believed that Black people don't feel pain in the same way that other races do. Their skin is thicker with less nerves. They don't give them the same amount of pain medicine in ER and Doctor settings as White people. The list goes on and on. So he has to fight through all of that with examples from the bible to convince his congregation to take the vaccine. Of course I couldn't use any that on my Mom because she's a flaming racist but I found it interesting.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Dec 6, 2020 7:17:14 GMT
Yes, that is bullying. You can try to make it sound as nice as you can, but in the end they're still trying to inflict negative actions on someone based on nothing more than their "opinion". Stating an opinion on social media that doesn't try to hurt anyone (Letitia) is far different from attacking her, calling her names, and trying to get her fired from her job based on said opinion. Now I'm not saying people's actions won't have an impact on their job. But there's a difference between you, as a manager, firing someone because they hurt the reputation of a company and them, as an outsider, attacking someone they disagree with. You are simply reacting to a situation based on its effect on YOU and YOUR company brought about by YOUR employee. THEY are attacking someone who has no direct relation to them whatsoever based on nothing more than a disagreement of opinion. So basically you're saying I can go ahead and verbally abuse any person I want because I have a right to express my displeasure publicly. In this specific situation Letitia does have some influence in actually hurting people. By her retweeting a video that questions vaccines in general and this one specifically without evidence in a pandemic she could sway people not to take the vaccine. Than can not only hurt people who don't take the vaccine but people who can't take the vaccine getting sick. Completely innocent bystanders in all of this. By her endorsing that video she is applying her influence to an opinion that could conceivably kill people. And add fuel to anti-vaxxers. Which has a growing population in young people. Her core fandom. I don't think calling people out on their opinion is bullying. To me who might not be able to take the vaccine because of IBD and Remicade and my 77 year old mother who definitely can't take it because of a bad liver and kidneys, her opinion/the opinion in the video about vaccinations in general and others like it is deadly. I don't think it's bullying for me to respond to her and especially Tomi Arayomi opinions as being ignorant and both are dicks for aligning themselves with the idea that vaccines are some how unsafe. His opinion is they are she led her backing to his opinion by posting the tweet. My opinion on that is they are idiots and should be told so. You absolutely have the right to call someone a dick if you think they are acting like one. That's not verbal abuse. Hell if you think I'm a dick by all means have at it for that opinion. It's not polite and neither is me calling them that, but you have the right to do it. I don't think she should use her influence on young people to do that. That's my opinion. It's just a valid as hers. More so because hers is coming from a place of ignorance. Now I don't condone calling her evil, that she should die, that she's ugly, talentless, or the rest of the other stuff. That to me is bullying, but saying she doesn't have the facts/ignorant that she's being a dick for her opinion to helpless people is not. She is giving a helping hand to people who have given measles a helping hand. That's not bullying. I also think it's not bullying to let Disney know I don't feel her using her platform to influence others in this direction, given to her partially by Disney, (also her natural talent and work ethic) is correct. I would never tell Disney to fire her, but I would express my opinion that I feel she is perpetuating ignorance that could have deadly consequences. And I feel that maybe if everyone else wasn't so fucking dumb that this wouldn't even be a problem. There is far more harmful ignorance in the mass public than anti-vaccers.
|
|
Jason143
Junior Member
@glaceon
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 610
|
Post by Jason143 on Dec 6, 2020 19:16:08 GMT
She should be perma banned. This isnt a personal opinion on a fictional issue she has. Its objective reality and dangerous for her to mislead millions of followers to doubt vaccine science when she has no other argument than to say, look at this youtube video guys.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Dec 7, 2020 14:31:36 GMT
She should be perma banned. This isnt a personal opinion on a fictional issue she has. Its objective reality and dangerous for her to mislead millions of followers to doubt vaccine science when she has no other argument than to say, look at this youtube video guys. Right? It’s not quite coming out as a Flat Earther.
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Dec 8, 2020 4:08:09 GMT
She should be perma banned. This isnt a personal opinion on a fictional issue she has. Its objective reality and dangerous for her to mislead millions of followers to doubt vaccine science when she has no other argument than to say, look at this youtube video guys. In that case, Kamala Harris should be banned too since she said she’d be suspicious of any vaccine made during the Trump administration.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Dec 8, 2020 13:49:49 GMT
She should be perma banned. This isnt a personal opinion on a fictional issue she has. Its objective reality and dangerous for her to mislead millions of followers to doubt vaccine science when she has no other argument than to say, look at this youtube video guys. In that case, Kamala Harris should be banned too since she said she’d be suspicious of any vaccine made during the Trump administration. Depends, was she saying it about all vaccines or just ones only Trump got behind? because Trumps track record lends itself to doubt, he's lied so much so often if only he came out and said we have this great vaccine, it's the greatest vaccine ever made, i know I helped make it...you know typical Trump stuff then yeah doubt the shit out of it, but did she say doubt all vaccines? One doubts the validity of a implied specific vaccine based on the lack of credibility of the person trying to validate it, because they are untrustworthy with anterior motives, the other is doubting the scientific value and trustworthiness of an entire line of medical science seemingly based off of their own lack of understanding, given what she posted, I would say apples and oranges but atleast those are two fruits, this is more like apples and tennis balls.
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Dec 8, 2020 17:36:27 GMT
In that case, Kamala Harris should be banned too since she said she’d be suspicious of any vaccine made during the Trump administration. Depends, was she saying it about all vaccines or just ones only Trump got behind? because Trumps track record lends itself to doubt, he's lied so much so often if only he came out and said we have this great vaccine, it's the greatest vaccine ever made, i know I helped make it...you know typical Trump stuff then yeah doubt the shit out of it, but did she say doubt all vaccines? One doubts the validity of a implied specific vaccine based on the lack of credibility of the person trying to validate it, because they are untrustworthy with anterior motives, the other is doubting the scientific value and trustworthiness of an entire line of medical science seemingly based off of their own lack of understanding, given what she posted, I would say apples and oranges but atleast those are two fruits, this is more like apples and tennis balls. How is it any different? Wright is saying we should be hesitant to take a vaccine; Harris said the same thing. The only difference is that Wright said it because she seems to actually believe that vaccines are dangerous, while Harris only said it because she hates the orange man. Either way, they’re both planting doubt for no reason. Trump has nothing to do with actually making the vaccine. He signs off and gives funding, etc. etc. but he’s obviously not throwing on a lab coat and making the fucking things himself. She knows that and said that bullshit anyway because she can’t even admit the smallest, most basic competence out of Trump - because she’s an arrogant and bogus moron. Harris’ comments were stupid and of course got a pass because it had something to do with bashing Trump. Had Biden’s administration been the first to develop a vaccine and Trump started tweeting about not taking it, he’d be banned from Twitter and so would any other right-wing commentator. She gets a pass because she’s a lefty and we all know it.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Dec 9, 2020 4:13:25 GMT
Depends, was she saying it about all vaccines or just ones only Trump got behind? because Trumps track record lends itself to doubt, he's lied so much so often if only he came out and said we have this great vaccine, it's the greatest vaccine ever made, i know I helped make it...you know typical Trump stuff then yeah doubt the shit out of it, but did she say doubt all vaccines? One doubts the validity of a implied specific vaccine based on the lack of credibility of the person trying to validate it, because they are untrustworthy with anterior motives, the other is doubting the scientific value and trustworthiness of an entire line of medical science seemingly based off of their own lack of understanding, given what she posted, I would say apples and oranges but atleast those are two fruits, this is more like apples and tennis balls. How is it any different? Wright is saying we should be hesitant to take a vaccine; Harris said the same thing. The only difference is that Wright said it because she seems to actually believe that vaccines are dangerous, while Harris only said it because she hates the orange man. Either way, they’re both planting doubt for no reason. Trump has nothing to do with actually making the vaccine. He signs off and gives funding, etc. etc. but he’s obviously not throwing on a lab coat and making the fucking things himself. She knows that and said that bullshit anyway because she can’t even admit the smallest, most basic competence out of Trump - because she’s an arrogant and bogus moron. Harris’ comments were stupid and of course got a pass because it had something to do with bashing Trump. Had Biden’s administration been the first to develop a vaccine and Trump started tweeting about not taking it, he’d be banned from Twitter and so would any other right-wing commentator. She gets a pass because she’s a lefty and we all know it. Because Trump could not be trusted to tell the truth, he could be lying about the effectiveness, the side effects, the testing, the verification, the integrity of the makers of the vaccine, Trump especially as the election loomed should and could not be trusted when endorsing a vaccine because he would lie to rush one out to the public so he could claim his administration cured Covid in order to secure votes, she would be to me atleast throwing doubt on the validity of Trump and what he said, so you could just look at who/where else is putting trust in that vaccine or is it just Trump? Basically Harris i would assume is saying I wouldn't just trust if Trump said everyone take vaccine A it's the greatest vaccine ever, much better than vaccine B or C they are terrible, she's not saying don't take vaccine A let alone don't take vaccine B or C just don't blindly follow the endorsement of Trump, which lets be honest is fair because Trump would likely endorse a vaccine that is 40% less effective, with more side effects and less testing because he gets a promised payday out of it, preference in a future deal or it would pay off a debt he owed, because dude is shady as shit and not to be trusted. Wright on the other hand is basically saying don't trust vaccine A, B, C, D E all the way to Z no matter who makes it, endorses it, or anything because she simply doesn't get how they work apparently, thats the difference Harris's doubt implies to look to alternatives and ensure you are taking a vaccine you trust, Wright's doubt is towards the entire concept of a vaccine so don't trust any of them, you know like saying don't trust Trump is saying do not trust him, not everyone that is like him, just him.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Dec 10, 2020 2:45:22 GMT
Why would she speak up in the first place? lols She's just an actress until she isn't, & then she is again?? lols Actors and other entertainment industry personnel have been talking about issues unrelated to their profession for years now, with the last five years being so much to where Ricky Gervais just had to say something at the Golden Globes this year in their opening monologue. You will find very few of those in the entire industry who don't talk issues beyond their line of work.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Dec 10, 2020 2:52:35 GMT
Why would she speak up in the first place? lols She's just an actress until she isn't, & then she is again?? lols Actors and other entertainment industry personnel have been talking about issues unrelated to their profession for years now, with the last five years being so much to where Ricky Gervais just had to say something at the Golden Globes this year in their opening monologue. You will find very few of those in the entire industry who don't talk issues beyond their line of work. For the record, Ricky Gerais himself has talked about and promoted issues unrelated to his work as well. He’s been a big advocate for animals rights, and he has supported the Labour Party.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Dec 10, 2020 2:59:25 GMT
Meh, stupid move to close their Twitter and Instagram accounts, now those people who took their criticisms to the point where she felt bad enough to want to leave both platforms will feel empowered and think they can change the world just from a keyboard or a tablet. I am not talking about those with legitimately reasonable and mature responses, but those who spoke immaturely and acted like bullies in junior high school, they see this as a 'victory', which will inflate their egos to an unhealthy level.
|
|