Free Speech Has Consequences. So Does Social Outrage.
by Ranty Em | Published February 18, 2021
Lord, beer me strength. After firing off a disgraceful meme comparing the plight of the American conservative to Holocaust victims, Gina Carano was on the receiving end of the Internet doing what it does best – reacting first, asking questions never.
Make no mistake – her post was gross. Nazi analogies spark justifiable outrage. Unless you’re talking about China’s current treatment of Uighur Muslims, it’s unlikely that the Nazi Germany comparison is anything but lazy, hyperbolic clickbait garbage.
Note: If you wonder why the Holocaust continues to be the event against which all evil is measured, Yair Rosenberg explains the Jewish point of view in this article. In short, “So many Jews were murdered that we still haven’t recovered demographically after 80 years.”
To be 100% clear, Carano’s post aggravated, frustrated, angered, and disgusted me. It isn’t the first time one of her posts has bothered me, and I imagine it won’t be the last. I haven’t seen her go full-on “Jewish Space Lasers” yet so maybe there’s hope. However. Nothing happens in a vacuum. Not her posts. Not the online outrage. Not her dismissal from LucasFilm/Disney. And not the thousands of other posts that have done the same thing as hers (without consequence).
I’m not here to regurgitate Gina Carano criticisms and backlash. I’m not here to defend her rights. But this Jew is tired. If you’re here, we probably agree on a handful of things, most notably that bigotry is bad and equality is good. But like with a lot of Internet-related problems, the reaction-first approach is rendering context and critical thinking irrelevant, and the “impact matters, intent doesn’t” crowd is inadvertently compounding the problem.
Let’s break it down.
How It Started
First of all, Gina Carano is not the first to be fired for offensive posts nor will she be the last. It wasn’t Carano’s first post that drew Interweb backlash either. So when I say we’re talking about “How it started,” this will by no means be a comprehensive retrospective into the world of public shaming and/or actions having consequences. But we can (and should) discuss what reactive outrage does and does not accomplish.
In the case of Gina Carano’s latest TikTok post (which has since been deleted), Carano posted an image from the Holocaust and wrote the following:
“Jews were beaten in the streets, not by Nazi soldiers but by their neighbors… even by children… 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?”
Cringy, right? Soon after, social media was flooded with anger, indignation, and the hashtag #FireGinaCarano. People called her Antisemitic and said she was disparaging the Jewish people. Carano deleted the post, but LucasFilm promptly denounced her comments and stated they had no plans to work with her again. Carano was also dropped by talent agency UTA. Then half the Internet cheered, not only congratulating themselves but celebrating Disney for *checks Twitter notes* its “commitment to the fight against bigotry.” And since the news broke, Carano has responded to “being canceled,” announcing a new partnership with Ben Shapiro’s The Daily Wire. Disney boycotts have begun. While some Mandalorian fans celebrated her exit, others started petitions to reinstate her as Cara Dune.
Those are the highlights. It’s a lot to unpack.
We can't keep assuming the worst about people on the other side. This doesn’t mean that we can’t have deal breakers, but it does mean we should be prudent and deliberate about how and when those deal breakers apply.
Ranty Em
How It’s Going
Holocaust Analogies Have Got to Stop
Since everyone is offering their unsolicited opinion about Carano’s post, I might as well. It was deeply flawed. It downplays the horror that was the Holocaust. It indulges a shocking level of self-victimization, and it’s obvious that she’s glaringly ignorant about the Holocaust.
The Nazis *did* beat the Jews. In the streets. It’s true they wanted Germans to turn against their Jewish neighbors, but their demonization led to genocide. Comparing that with the treatment of America’s Conservatives today is beyond tone deaf, and the subsequent backlash isn’t especially surprising. Was it Antisemitic? No, not particularly. But I recognize that no cultural group is monolithic and others may see it differently. Trivializing the Holocaust offends me, but it isn’t inherently anti-Jewish. If it were, Gina Carano would be only one of countless celebrities to do the same – and that is something that spans the political spectrum. (I mean, John Cusack still gets work.)
In 2018, Pedro Pascal published a Holocaust-comparison post to social media, comparing U.S. detention centers to concentration camps. More recently, he compared Trump supporters to Nazis after the 2020 election. And though I might be convinced that all American Nazis are Trump supporters, it’s hyperbolic and problematic to claim all Trump supporters are Nazis. These posts also trivialize the severity of the Holocaust. Should Pascal be fired, too? Is there a double standard here? Like with most political debate, opinions tend to fall along party lines.
The truth is Disney isn’t making these decisions based on any moral code, and no one should fool themselves into thinking otherwise. Disney is a business – and they’ve had several bigotry and equality-related controversies (see: Mulan for a recent example). Carano has every right to be outspoken and publish her views. Her employer has the right to fire her if those statements could impact their bottom line. That’s a core conservative philosophy (and one that, to my knowledge, has not resulted in this level of backlash).
Of course, Carano and Pascal aren’t alone. Celebrities, protesters, political activists, Internet trolls – Holocaust comparisons and imagery are overused A LOT. And with VERY limited exception, it creates dismissiveness and confusion around the profound atrocities that took place during the Holocaust.
This Wasn’t Her First Offensive Post
It’s true. Gina Carano has come under fire for other political posts. Last fall, after repeated requests by liberal fans to put her pronouns in her profile, she put fake pronouns (boop/bop/beep) in her Instagram bio, mocking the requests, which according to her, devolved into online harassment when she refused. Can it just be cool to not publish pronouns if you don’t want to and to publish them if you do?
Like some Jews found her Holocaust post Antisemitic and others did not, I imagine some trans people found this transphobic and others did not. Were her comments out of ignorance or hatred? If you’re interested in combating bigotry, it matters. Following the backlash, she noted that Pedro Pascal had explained the significance to her and the fake pronouns are no longer on her profiles. I’d wager her bad joke stemmed from ignorance. Some say, “too little, too late.” Why? Wouldn’t you rather gain an ally who has learned from their mistakes and can help educate others? Has ideological purity become so prolific that it’s better to sow division as long as you personally don’t feel responsible for it?
In the wake of this latest controversy, more old posts have surfaced. The image below plays on exaggerated Jewish features and conspiratorial ideas of Jewish power and control, and it’s far more Antisemitic in nature than her Holocaust analogy. Coincidentally, Ice Cube shared a similar post in June of 2020 and when originally confronted about it, he defended it as “pro-Black.” (It is worth noting that Ice Cube has since spoken with Dave Zirin on a podcast and walked back his defense, although it was primarily of the “I’m sorry you didn’t understand what I meant” variety.”)
So is this ignorance or Jew-hatred? Context matters. Intent matters. Impact matters. In this case, it’s important to consider Ice Cube’s and Carano’s intent and impact. It’s also to consider our own intent and impact. Context matters.
Outcomes > Outrage
I generally give people the benefit of the doubt that their intentions are at least as good as my own. Most people with bigoted intentions can’t help but make it known. I also don’t assume that non-Jews are as sensitive to Antisemitic tropes as we are. It’s incredible how many potentially volatile situations can be de-escalated by privately asking someone, “What did you mean by that?” instead of immediately blasting them publicly. And while we can’t personally check in with a celebrity one-on-one, we can allow them to respond before demanding retribution. We can see how they’ve responded if they’ve previously been called out for offensive posts. We can contextualize the situation and prioritize the outcomes we want over the emotions we feel in the moment.
What Do We Want?
If our main objective is to punish people for posting offensive material, that’s a pretty piss poor goal, especially when there’s virtually no consistency to it. And for the “canceled” public figures? By-and-large, they’re not canceled because unless they’ve committed a crime (see: Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Kevin Spacey), we aren’t in a position to enforce real consequences – and even then, justice isn’t always served. The divide is growing, and those who’ve been targeted tend to start and grow communities that consider ideology a part of diversity. I’m not talking about Gab or Parler. Research shows that conservatives are less likely to “exclude ideological rivals from their social circles,” and it fosters environments that are better at solving problems and support a healthy democracy.
We can’t keep assuming the worst about people on the other side. This doesn’t mean that we can’t have deal breakers, but it does mean we should be prudent and deliberate about how and when those deal breakers apply. You’re not going to simply outlive all the people who have views you find offensive. If your plan is to continue current shaming tactics, confident those with these views will “die out,” your ideological bubble is narrower than you realize. And if you are willing to accept that without changing course, you’re ignoring your contribution to the problem, and your impact matters more than your intention. If you can’t be bothered to educate or listen – out of a need for self-care or time or energy – then frankly, you don’t have the constitution, time, or energy to thoughtfully engage in these online discussions at all.
How It Should Be
If our objective is to call out offensive content to combat bigotry, then the aforementioned courses of action don’t work. In fact, it often has the opposite impact. It should come as no surprise that when you tell someone their intentions don’t matter, they aren’t quick to come to your way of thinking. You cannot shame or embarrass most people into changing their behavior. In a knee-jerk reactive world, the reaction it fosters is defensiveness and entrenchment.
Ignorance is nothing to be proud of, but it’s far easier to overcome than hatred. Unfortunately for human nature in the Internet Influence Age, you can’t overcome it by public shaming or ridicule. You don’t overcome it overnight. You certainly don’t overcome it by demanding no future missteps. And you don’t overcome it by telling yourself you bear no responsibility for the damage divisiveness causes – that they should know better.
Both Intention and Impact Contribute to Context and Analysis
Can we please stop denying that intention and context play an important part in critical thinking? If we can admit that, we should be able to admit that impulsive, emotionally charged reactions lack the critical thinking required to progress towards ambitious (but not unattainable) goals of equality and respect. It doesn’t mean impact shouldn’t be weighted in the analysis. We expect and deserve the same courtesy with our own actions and missteps. It isn’t simple. People don’t change overnight. But it’s doable. More importantly, this kind of change is fundamental to the outcomes we want.
Additional Resources: