Julianna Margulies and Peter Gallagher To Star In LEFT ON TENTH- Page 2

[QueenTwinnied]

Posted: 3/23/24 at 12:27am

It certainly isn't illogical to think actions should have consequences, especially when you consider the heinous **** Julianna spewed. 

[Islander_fan]

Posted: 3/23/24 at 5:03am

The thing is that she said words. She didn’t do anything other than express her own personal opinion on things. Sure, vile as they may have been, she has just strong a right to say them just like someone else has just a strong a right to disagree with them. If you disagree with what she said, that’s on you. To say that she shouldn’t work because of things she said is beyond over the top and that is the the biggest issue I have with the bogus cancel culture that is going on. I do disagree with what she said, but at the same time find it very important to defend the fact that she can say it. Just because she did, doesn’t mean in, in any form or fashion, that she should no longer be able to hold a job as a result. That, is an aspect I find laughable. And, do keep in mind, i am as liberal as the day is long. 

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 3/23/24 at 6:28am

Jane Fonda. Hanoi Jane. Career wasn’t affected one bit though many to this day continue to hate her and say she needs to be canceled. Hanoi Jane era was 52 years ago. 

[GottaGetAGimmick420]

Posted: 3/23/24 at 7:05am

Islander_fan said: "The thing is that she said words. She didn’t doanythingother than express her own personal opinion on things. Sure, vile as they may have been, she has just strong a right to say them just like someone else has just a strong a right to disagree with them. If you disagree with what she said, that’s on you. To say that she shouldn’t work because of things she said is beyond over the top and that is the the biggest issue I have with the bogus cancel culture that is going on. I do disagree with what she said, but at the same time find it very important to defend the fact that she can say it. Just because she did, doesn’t mean in, in any form or fashion, that she should no longer be able to hold a job as a result. That, is an aspect I find laughable. And, do keep in mind, i am as liberal as the day is long."

[GottaGetAGimmick420]

Posted: 3/23/24 at 7:07am

Also call me crazy but there's a huuuuuge difference between Jane Fonda being an activist and Julianna Margulies being a bigot but sure cAnCeL cUlTuRe

[Islander_fan]

Posted: 3/23/24 at 8:46am

The previous posts in this thread, the ones that talked about how they hope the show flops or she never works again. Those comments are what I am talking about. Specially those in response stating that one must be agreeing with her views if they are willing to see the show. I get it, there are people out there to whom what she said  doesn’t sit well with them, and as a result, don’t want to see the show. That is totally fine. After all, no one is being forced to buy a ticket for this play. But, to come out and say in various ways that because someone is willing to buy a ticket therefor, they must agree with her views by virtue of buying a ticket/expressing interest to see the show. People will always have differing opinions. It doesn’t mean one person is wrong the other right. It’s simply just different. It’s the illogical notion of I’m right and you’re wrong.

There are those who have trouble with separating the art from the artist. And, that’s ok. I am guilty of that myself. Hell, the idea of sitting through any Roman Polanski film makes me wanna puke. But, if there is someone who doesn’t mind. I am not going to bash them for it if they are able to seperate the man from his work. More power to them, we disagree. So what? Big deal. 

[orlikethecolorpurple]

Posted: 3/23/24 at 8:55am

When someone lols at people stating the very legit reason they wouldn’t be seeing the show, when someone is antagonistic towards those who take issue with racists, I don’t think it’s a stretch to consider they might agree with her views.

But sure, sis. 

[kdogg36]

Posted: 3/23/24 at 9:19am

Islander_fan said: "I do disagree with what she said, but at the same time find it very important to defend the fact that she can say it. Just because she did, doesn’t mean in, in any form or fashion, that she should no longer be able to hold a job as a result."

While I don't know what Margulies said, I strongly disagree with the general principle you're embracing here. The First Amendment guarantees that we won't go to jail or face government harassment for what we say; it doesn't and shouldn't guarantee that we won't face the natural consequences of other people's judgment about us. In fact, in a free society, this is exactly how repugnant opinions should be policed.

Let's say there was an actor who publicly espoused perfectly legal but extremely vile opinions about LGBT people (use your imagination here). Do you really think it would be wrong for us to oppose hiring that actor for a Broadway show?

Updated On: 3/23/24 at 09:19 AM

[orlikethecolorpurple]

Posted: 3/23/24 at 9:28am

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from repercussion. Period.

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 3/23/24 at 11:51am

orlikethecolorpurple said: "Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from repercussion. Period."

could not agree with this more. my point was that only the most extreme, hostile people would want someone banned/career ended because they said something poorly on a podcast and subsequently apologized/clarified their remarks. theres no nuance, no gray areas, no intelligent objection, just shrieking name-calling. exhausting but thankfully irrelevant.

and of course the idea that not only is she a racist/homophobe/islamophobe/monster but then so am i, is comical. particularly when there is real, dangerous racism and homophobia and islamophobia out there pervading our society. 

but this is the age we live in, so by all means carry on, carry on. 

[orlikethecolorpurple]

Posted: 3/23/24 at 12:43pm

PipingHotPiccolo said: "my point was that only the most extreme, hostile people would want someone banned/career ended because they said something poorly on a podcast and subsequently apologized/clarified their remarks. theres no nuance, no gray areas, no intelligent objection, just shrieking name-calling. exhausting but thankfully irrelevant."


Nothing remotely resembling this had been said before you started with the condescension. So, no, I don’t think this was your point.

Updated On: 3/23/24 at 12:43 PM

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 3/23/24 at 1:09pm

orlikethecolorpurple said: "PipingHotPiccolo said: "my point was that only the most extreme, hostile people would want someone banned/career ended because they said something poorly on a podcast and subsequently apologized/clarified their remarks. theres no nuance, no gray areas, no intelligent objection, just shrieking name-calling. exhausting but thankfully irrelevant."


Nothing remotely resembling this had been said before you started with the condescension. So, no, I don’t think this was your point."

verbatim, my first comment on the subject: "lol at the 37 people all mad at her for some comments she apologized for on a podcast."  im still right where i started (and yes, that is dripping with condescension at all this faux neverending meaningless narcissistic outrage). 

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 3/23/24 at 1:24pm

I feel like the mods should close this thread now

[orlikethecolorpurple]

Posted: 3/23/24 at 1:24pm

…that’s my point, lol. No one had called for a career to end at that point. It wasn’t in response to “shrieking” or “name calling” or extremism. You simply chose to antagonize people. Own that ****, gramps.

[imeldasturn]

Posted: 3/23/24 at 1:53pm

Can't believe she signed that idiotic letter against Jonathan Glazer

[spicemonkey]

Posted: 3/24/24 at 6:02am

imeldasturn said: "Can't believe she signed that idiotic letter againstJonathan Glazer"

So did Tovah Feldshuh