Wanted to correct some disinformation I've seen floating around social media, and which was repeated by a Slate podcast, regarding Gina Carano's firing. (Thread).
There's a revisionist claim that Carano was not fired for the post comparing political hatred to treatment of Jews in Germany: slate.com/transcripts/N0… 
Now, if you read literally any report on Carano's firing when it happened, it cited this post as the cause. ie: hollywoodreporter.com/news/the-manda…
or apnews.com/article/gina-c…
or any other article that reported the firing.
or apnews.com/article/gina-c…
or any other article that reported the firing.
There was a social media mob claiming this post was anti-Semitic, and their ruckus got her fired. None of the reporting disputes this!
However, after it happened, it was pretty clear the post wasn't anti-Semitic. People who wanted to justify it (or don't like the criticism of left-wing social media panics) changed the justification to a previous post, showing a sinister cabal of white men around a table
But again, that's not the post that got her fired. It's pretty clear. She kept her job after the table post, and was fired after the Germany post.
Was the first post anti-Semitic? My view is that a sophisticated reader would have seen anti-Semitic tropes, but I don't expect an actor to grasp this, especially given the lack of Jewish symbols. nymag.com/intelligencer/…
In conclusion, if you think Carano deserved to be fired for the table post, so it's ok she was fired for the German's post, I disagree, but that's your opinion.
If you're claiming she was actually fired over the table post, that's a fact claim, and you're wrong.
If you're claiming she was actually fired over the table post, that's a fact claim, and you're wrong.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
