To be honest, I looked up the Tweet and thought that she wouldn't have been fired for Tweeting this as a Democrat.
In other words, the offense was inferred more than implied. Fairly inferred, I suppose. Am I crazy? She was writing about the roots of hatred.
The thing that bothers me most, I think, is that some number of news outlets reported that she made "anti-Semitic remarks" which I don't think is an accurate description of what she posted, and makes it sound as if she is hateful rather than merely stupid.
This article delves into her Twitter history (before wandering off to ponder whether this is comparable to Hollywood blacklisting suspected communists in the 1950s):
Earlier this week, Gina Carano, an actor in The Mandalorian, was fired from her job after a controversy over an allegedly anti-Semitic social-media post. In short order, UTSA, her talent agency, dropped her as a client.
Many media accounts have taken the anti-Semitism charge at face value (USA Today: “… an anti-Semitic Instagram Story that she shared from another user.”) The post in question, which triggered a social-media firestorm that quickly led to her firing and loss of representation, was not anti-Semitic by any reasonable definition. The post simply argued (uncontroversially) that the Holocaust grew out of a hate campaign against Jews, which it then likened (controversially) to hatred of fellow Americans for their political views:
“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”
I don’t find this post especially insightful. But overheated comparisons to Nazi Germany are quite common, and, more to the point, not anti-Semitic. There is no hint anywhere in this post of sympathy for Nazis or blame for their victims.
Many of the reports of Carano’s termination string together the trumped-up offense of her post about Nazism with a series of controversial posts. The worst of them is a post insinuating elections are rife with voter fraud and should impose photo ID — a claim that, while provably false, is also a standard-issue Republican belief. The second-most controversial post in her history is a very small joke, in which she added “boop/bop/beep” to her Twitter profile, before apologizing for the insensitivity of seeming to mock the practice of including pronouns in social-media biographies.
The remainder of her case history seems to consist of commonly held beliefs. Variety solemnly reports, “Other posts, including a quote saying ‘Expecting everyone you encounter to agree with every belief or view you hold is **** wild’ and one saying ‘Jeff Epstein didn’t kill himself,’ remained.” The suspicion that Epstein was murdered is hardly unusual. And Carano’s belief that we should not expect everybody we encounter to share all our beliefs is not only widespread but utterly sensible. Indeed this seems to be the central point of disagreement between Carano and her former employer and client.
What’s most striking about the news coverage of Carano’s defenestration is the utter absence of any scrutiny of her employer or her (now-former) agency. The tone of the reporting simply conveys her posts as though they were a series of petty crimes, the punishment of which is inevitable and self-evidently justified. The principle that an actor ought to be fired for expressing unsound political views has simply faded into the background. -k