Posted: 5/8/25 at 5:15am
I think you make some good points, Binau. I personally will make my ticket buying decisions based on the writing, scores, cast, etc. and not the political beliefs of those involved. However, it seems like the OP is wanting a list of people who he can avoid, rather than a list of people to 'cancel'. And that's fine IMO.
Posted: 5/8/25 at 6:26am
binau said: "TheQuibbler said: "I don’t see how this is any different than choosing not to patronize Chik-Fil-A because of their LGBTQ+ stances. The only power we really have is our spending power. Perhaps it won’t move the needle, at least you’ll know you didn’t contribute to something that goes against your fundamental beliefs. It’s not always easy, or even clear, but I’d say it’s worthwhile."
I think the difference is if it's a corporation vs putting an individual on a name and shame list. In a free democracy everyone has the right (and is encouraged) to express their democratic right to vote.But while everyone has the right to vote, there is no 'right' of organisations to pool their resources together and send it to political movements. That is called political activism.
If you start to identify individual names and go after them and believe they should essentially be out of work or cancelled what you are saying is that you think they should be persecuted for expressing their democratic right to vote in a free society. An easy test I think if this is a good idea or not is think about if the person who controls the power is different and is doing exactly the same actions that you are normalising and saying is ok right now, but instead the persecution is not based on whether you vote for Trump or not but whether you vote for Democrats or not.Would you still think this is a good idea? I don't think you would.
One reason to not go down this path is to take amoral high ground position but it's not just that - it's also trying to avoid the obvious dangerous implications that if you normalise this kind of behaviour we can easily become a victim of this very same thing should the power suddenly change (which can and has proven it does). The same can be said about when people try to control and censor speech.
Every individual has the right to express their democratic right in a free society and if you are persecuting people who do this then we don't REALLY live in a democracy, do we?
One of the things I loved about the progressive movement 10 years ago is we used to always take the moral high ground, but over the last few years we have betrayed some of these principles to try and win a dirty game. I don't think it's right or strategic - to give another example it used to be easy for the progressive movement to justify itself simply because of its aim to tell the truth. Unfortunately, in the last few years the progressive movement has even being willing to betray this principle (e.g. I have now lost count how many times I have seen 'misinformation' spread from intentional misquotes of opponents or disingenuous takes). This is easily exposed and creating a situation where the progressive movement is also now dismissed for misinformation. Meanwhile, the level of conspiracy that the right is now starting to preach is getting crazzzzzyyyyy.....for example holocaust denial is actually starting to become less fringe now it seems. That is crazy! But all a naive individual has to do is go is take a look at the 'fine people' misinformation first hand and then can be led down this crazy path because they lose trust completely.
What happened to"When they go low we go high?". It seems to me that US politics has now descended to something like the Israel-Palestine conflict where each side hate each other and are willing to do awful things to each other with a complete lack of empathy and callousness.......someone needs to take the moral high ground or the spiral will never end.
Ahh, yes. More of that worthless “when they go low, we go high” crap. Just a way for liberals to feel morally superior while their rights and freedoms are eliminated. You’re dealing with a side that has no use for, nor understanding of, norms and rules. This is a war. A war for America’s future. But hey, while Republicans are destroying this country, you can feel better knowing you didn’t stoop to their level.
"
Posted: 5/8/25 at 6:34am
binau said: "TheQuibbler said: "I don’t see how this is any different than choosing not to patronize Chik-Fil-A because of their LGBTQ+ stances. The only power we really have is our spending power. Perhaps it won’t move the needle, at least you’ll know you didn’t contribute to something that goes against your fundamental beliefs. It’s not always easy, or even clear, but I’d say it’s worthwhile."
I think the difference is if it's a corporation vs putting an individual on a name and shame list. In a free democracy everyone has the right (and is encouraged) to express their democratic right to vote.But while everyone has the right to vote, there is no 'right' of organisations to pool their resources together and send it to political movements. That is called political activism.
If you start to identify individual names and go after them and believe they should essentially be out of work or cancelled what you are saying is that you think they should be persecuted for expressing their democratic right to vote in a free society. An easy test I think if this is a good idea or not is think about if the person who controls the power is different and is doing exactly the same actions that you are normalising and saying is ok right now, but instead the persecution is not based on whether you vote for Trump or not but whether you vote for Democrats or not.Would you still think this is a good idea? I don't think you would.
One reason to not go down this path is to take amoral high ground position but it's not just that - it's also trying to avoid the obvious dangerous implications that if you normalise this kind of behaviour we can easily become a victim of this very same thing should the power suddenly change (which can and has proven it does). The same can be said about when people try to control and censor speech.
Every individual has the right to express their democratic right in a free society and if you are persecuting people who do this then we don't REALLY live in a democracy, do we?
One of the things I loved about the progressive movement 10 years ago is we used to always take the moral high ground, but over the last few years we have betrayed some of these principles to try and win a dirty game. I don't think it's right or strategic - to give another example it used to be easy for the progressive movement to justify itself simply because of its aim to tell the truth. Unfortunately, in the last few years the progressive movement has even being willing to betray this principle (e.g. I have now lost count how many times I have seen 'misinformation' spread from intentional misquotes of opponents or disingenuous takes). This is easily exposed and creating a situation where the progressive movement is also now dismissed for misinformation. Meanwhile, the level of conspiracy that the right is now starting to preach is getting crazzzzzyyyyy.....for example holocaust denial is actually starting to become less fringe now it seems. That is crazy! But all a naive individual has to do is go is take a look at the 'fine people' misinformation first hand and then can be led down this crazy path because they lose trust completely.
What happened to"When they go low we go high?". It seems to me that US politics has now descended to something like the Israel-Palestine conflict where each side hate each other and are willing to do awful things to each other with a complete lack of empathy and callousness.......someone needs to take the moral high ground or the spiral will never end.
"
Uh. I think there’s kinda a huge difference between publicly naming what someone ACTUALLY acknowledges and believes and choosing to not engage with their work and “persecuting” someone.
What a massive false equivalence.
Wanting to know who puts their energy and money into supporting Fascist regimes so we can take our business elsewhere or not uplift their art is not persecution. That is such MAGA rhetoric.
Thus also goes to the person invoking John Proctor Is The Villain earlier. Besides missing the point of the show entirely (the playwright is on record as saying the literal inspiration for the show was Woody Allen calling the Me Too movement—a completely valid movement of naming names of predators and publicly holding them accountable—a witch hunt)—it’s not a witch hunt to talk about people who publicly allude to support of Fascism.
Like jeeze, no one is asking for the arrest and imprisonment of people who donated to or support MAGA. No one is saying they should have their rights revoked or their free speech taken away. People just want to know who is contributing to a fascist society so they can be consumers and patrons who take their dollars elsewhere. That is freedom.
It’s actually perfectly reasonable for people to, say, not want Scherzinger to win a Tony for her MAGA dog whistling. A Tony Award is not a human right, lol.
Updated On: 5/8/25 at 06:34 AM
Posted: 5/8/25 at 7:13am
Some people seem to be reading much more nefarious intent into the OP's rather benign question.
People have long use their purchasing power to reflect what/who they wish their monies to support.
You can even buy stock funds that specifically exclude companies meeting certain criteria.
And in general, exercising one's right to speak freely does not also come with an expectation of privacy. Naming, shaming, boycotting and more occurred for decades within the boundaries of our legal system.
Posted: 5/8/25 at 8:38am
There is a big difference between having a private conversation about this and publicly naming and shaming in a public forum frequented by audiences and industry folk. Even if there is good intentions to try and use this to inform your personal choices by writing a hit list of people who disagree with you politically you are opening them up to controversy, persecution and cancellation.
In the very same post someone said these practices are not persecution while also saying it’s fine if Nicole loses a tony because she liked some icky instagram posts. This is persecution. This is cancel culture in action. Let’s at least be honest - you are going after people because they don’t appear to vote the way you wanted them to even though it is their right to do so. You seem to suggest that it’s not a witch hunt because they are witches. And the comparisons to metoo are so strange. These are people expressing their right to vote not rapists. The comparison is baffling.
Good luck if and when in the future the power dynamics shift and like McCarthyism suddenly it’s Democrat voters that are on the receiving end of this. You cannot take for granted that you will always have the dominant position in the culture that actually even allows you to do this - it’s already slipping away right now. In 5-10 years time if the US continues to shift to the right and there is a witch hunt for anyone that disagrees with whatever the dominant culture is at the time (which I don’t think is impossible to imagine) you will have no option but to accept this because you created the culture in which it happens.
Posted: 5/8/25 at 9:11am
binau said: "There is a big difference between having a private conversation about this and publicly naming and shaming in a public forum frequented by audiences and industry folk. Even if there is good intentions to try and use this to inform your personal choicesby writing a hit list of people who disagree with you politically you are opening them up to controversy, persecution and cancellation.”
Is it a bad thing if it’s controvers That someone supports racism?
What is cancellation anyway? Last I check Scherzinger is not only nominated for theater’s highest honor but a likely front runner. Such persecution!
In the very same post someone said these practices are not persecution while also saying it’s fine if Nicole loses a tony because she liked some icky instagram posts. This is persecution. This is cancel culture in action. Let’s at least be honest - you are going after people because they don’t appear tovote the way you wanted them to even though it is their right to do so. You seem to suggest that it’s not a witch hunt because they are witches. And the comparisons to metoo are so strange. These are people expressing their right to vote not rapists. The comparison is baffling.”
What’s baffling is pretending people wanting to take their business elsewhere is persecution when the real persecution is happening by the governement elected by these people.
Good luck if and when in the future the power dynamics shift and like McCarthyism suddenly it’s Democrat voters that are on the receiving end of this.”
You know what allows that to happen? People who vote for fascination an idiots who co-opt their rhetoric about being held accountable and claiming that is “persecution” or being cancelled. No one is even remotely threatening their human rights. Your attempt at blaming people who actually care about human rights is the exact false equivalence you claim to be denouncing here.
"
Posted: 5/8/25 at 9:29am
Yes, going after Nicole’s tony because she liked an icky instagram post you don’t agree with is political persecution by definition I don’t know what else to say? You yourself said you think it’s fair if Nicole loses the tony for this so therefore you agree that she should be persecuted. Even the view agreed people should leave her aloneeeeee.
LEAVE (Britney) NICOLE ALONEEEEE.
Updated On: 5/8/25 at 09:29 AM
Posted: 5/8/25 at 9:37am
I’m just going to say i will always be fascinated by who the “theater community” chooses to condemn and who they don’t. If it were any number of other people who just simply commented on that Russell Brand post and liked something posted by Tucker Carlson, they’d be blacklisted by fans but when “Mother is Mothering” as Nicole is, nobody cares and if you say something bad you’re a “hater”. And add me to the list of people who don’t care - I’m just interested in the ever fluctuating definition of what’s acceptable for people when certain people do it vs when others do.
I just wish to God we could go back to a time when it was big news to see someone like Julia Roberts pumping her own gas at a gas station and the photo was everywhere because stars, they're just like us and that's literally all we knew about her or any of them.
Updated On: 5/8/25 at 09:37 AM
Posted: 5/8/25 at 9:39am
BalconyClub said: "I support all theatre, but will buy tickets that are to the left of the aisle instead of the right."
First, thank you. This got a true LOL.
Second, and to the point of this post - while I think it is tempting to want to out people and urge for some kind of boycott, I think that is more a knee jerk reaction more than anything, and ultimately incredibly harmful. We don’t have to go too far back in our country’s history to see examples of what happens when people are accused of political party affiliation or opinions that one might not agree with. Creating lists makes me inherently uncomfortable. As someone stated before, like it or not, people are free to vote as they please. Not going to any specific theater is not going to make a difference - and ultimately will cause very little disruption to the person/company you wish hurt, but it will hurt many people you didn’t wish to hurt. As an example, many people boycott Amazon and Target. I don’t. Why? Because I work with refugees and many of our new American friends get jobs at companies like this to start out. Yes, we need to do something to change the course of our country, but that means getting out to vote in mid-terms, writing letters, not letting up on our elected officials, attending protests, writing op-ed. And it means, supporting the theater and the arts even more because it is being threatened.
Posted: 5/8/25 at 9:56am
"I just wish to God we could go back to a time when it was big news to see someone like Julia Roberts pumping her own gas at a gas station and the photo was everywhere because stars, they're just like us and that's literally all we knew about her or any of them"
Agree 100%.
Posted: 5/8/25 at 10:37am
The problem with this kind of pursuit, beyond that most of it is total heresy is that the sword often cuts both ways. Somebody mentioned above the Nederlanders who donated to both Republican and Democratic causes. What about a fiscal Republican who donates strongly to BCEFA? It's just not as black and white as people want to it to be.
I think its fair to single out people who are demonstratively, self declared extremist Trump supporters, but if they aren't self volunteering as such, its all speculation and that can lead to dangerous finger pointing.
Posted: 5/8/25 at 11:16am
Bwaygurl2 said: "I think you make some good points, Binau. I personally will make my ticket buying decisions based on the writing, scores, cast, etc. and not the political beliefs of those involved. However, it seems like the OP is wanting a list of people who he can avoid, rather than a list of people to 'cancel'. And that's fine IMO."
Thank you (and a few others) for pointing that out. I don't think choosing to avoid certain shows, or certain theaters, counts as prosecution. In a free society, people can say what they want and support any candidate they want, but the rest of us are free to make our own choices based on that information.
Updated On: 5/8/25 at 11:16 AM
Posted: 5/8/25 at 12:36pm
When we have reached the point where people (including US citizens) are being deported without due process (some to an El Salvadorian concentration camp), court orders are being ignored, and propaganda is being used to target marginalized groups, any form of resistance is valid.
Posted: 5/8/25 at 1:17pm
Jordan Catalano said: "I’m just going to say i will always be fascinated by who the “theater community” chooses to condemn and who they don’t. If it were any number of other people who just simply commented on that Russell Brand post and liked something posted by Tucker Carlson, they’d be blacklisted by fans but when “Mother is Mothering” as Nicole is, nobody cares and if you say something bad you’re a “hater”. And add me to the list of people who don’t care - I’m just interested in the ever fluctuating definition of what’s acceptable for people when certain people do it vs when others do."
This part. At its worst, it revealed she is a Trump supporter. At its best, it revealed she interacts in friendly ways with accused rapists and predators. But because she is queen diva of the moment, people brush it aside and act like it's disgusting for someone to take issue with it.
She has not been cancelled. She did not lose her job. She is still employed. She is nominated for a Tony. People are rooting for her to win. She has not been cancelled and has not suffered from the press surrounding her liking/commenting on instagram posts. It's not persecution for someone to say they don't want her to win the Tony because they disagree with her alleged politics.
Posted: 5/8/25 at 3:31pm
The very real reality about Nicole is that, yes, she may very well win the Tony for Sunset. However, once that show closes nobody will ever think of her again. The woman is a literal non-entity outside of this. She was a judge on The Masked Singer. She's someone who found her niche and thats all it is despite being in the industry for almost 30 years, nobody cares. Nobody is wondering what she's gonna do next.
Updated On: 5/8/25 at 03:31 PM
Posted: 5/8/25 at 3:32pm
Am I the only person who doesn’t think Nicole is a Trump supporter???
Posted: 5/8/25 at 3:34pm
TotallyEffed said: "Am I the only person who doesn’t think Nicole is a Trump supporter???"
I just think she's kinda dumb, but thinks she's smart.
Posted: 5/8/25 at 3:40pm
I don't think she's a Trump support but I think she's shown she isn't the most thoughtful or intelligent. She also liked posts about RFK Jr. And like I said she was frequently interacting with Russell Brand prior to the hat fiasco. Says enough about her.
Posted: 5/8/25 at 4:09pm
TotallyEffed said: "Am I the only person who doesn’t think Nicole is a Trump supporter???"
I suspect she is not, so you aren't alone.
I was feeling some type of way last fall when the Instagram "controversy" started.
To the extremely online political junkie, it looks bad to like the posts she did. But Nicole is probably like most Americans: in the dark. To her Russell Brand is "that guy from that movie I saw fifteen years ago" and RFK JR is just "that Kennedy dude."
So, I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. I can't see Patti hanging out with a Trumper.
Posted: 5/8/25 at 4:23pm
If you know anyone in the cast with her just ask them and you will get the truth. You may have noticed they weren't too quick to rush to her defense...
Posted: 5/8/25 at 4:27pm
If you are anti-fascist and were publicly accused of being a Trump supporter—why would you not unequivocally say you are not? Her response was not a denial—just vague platitudes, which is very telling.
Posted: 5/8/25 at 4:27pm
It's a second time I'm reading on this website that Denzel Washington is a Trump supporter, but after going down the internet rabbit hole, I couldn't find an single piece of hard evidence that he actually is. Him not telling who he voted for or being vocally disappointed in Democratic party is not a proof he's a trumper. But few people on here keep mentioning Denzel when it comes to Broadway performers politics.
Posted: 5/8/25 at 4:44pm
BroadwayGirl107 said: "If you are anti-fascist and were publicly accused of being a Trump supporter—why would you not unequivocally say you are not? Her response was not a denial—just vague platitudes, which is very telling."
Because not everyone wants to put their personal political views out there for the public as it's none of their business.
Posted: 5/8/25 at 4:57pm
Bwaygurl2 said: "BroadwayGirl107 said: "If you are anti-fascist and were publicly accused of being a Trump supporter—why would you not unequivocally say you are not? Her response was not a denial—just vague platitudes, which is very telling."
Because not everyone wants to put their personal political views out there for the public as it's none of their business."
Why is it none of our business if it's LITERALLY a business asking for our money? Because you say it's not? You don't get to decide that. You don't care, but others do.
Posted: 5/8/25 at 5:04pm
Bwaygurl2 said: "BroadwayGirl107 said: "If you are anti-fascist and were publicly accused of being a Trump supporter—why would you not unequivocally say you are not? Her response was not a denial—just vague platitudes, which is very telling."
Because not everyone wants to put their personal political views out there for the public as it's none of their business."
yeah this doesn’t make any sense, lol. Like, even if you are not political, if you are accused of being a Nazi sympathizer (based on your own actions), I can’t imagine what kind of person would not say “I am not a Nazi”. That’s not sharing political beliefs—just debunking a horrible accusation about your character. You could be a Republican who voted for the Bush administration or a third party supporter in a swing state in 2016 for all I care—saying “I’m not a Nazi” or “I’m not MAGA” is simply making it known you don’t support fascism. It’s not releasing a manifesto on your full spectrum of economic and social beliefs as pertaining to politics, lol.
Really some of y’all are working TOO HARD. 🤣
Updated On: 5/8/25 at 05:04 PM
