Arrowverse Stars Take Aim At ARROW Star Stephen Amell Following His Remarks About The SAG-AFTRA Strikes

@bobevanz - Yeah, that's totally it. A-hole.

@bobevanz - yeah, God forbid he thinks there are other solutions out there that might work better than the nuclear option which is striking 🙄

@DarthOmega - lol always "both sides" fence sitters like you trying to paint people who just want to feed their families against LITERAL billion dollar corporations who have the money and always have and make 500 m dollars a year but want to pay their workers 1 year salary to extract income from their facsimile for the REST OF TIME.

Toooootally equivalent right

@DarthOmega - Amen.

@Toonstrack - Ron Perlman didn't explicitly threaten it? Funny how this works. Agree with a person and it's fine. Disagree, and you blow the smallest thing out of proportion. Then you ask if someone threatening to steal from you is not violence? First of all, they aren't stealing anything. AI does. So maybe their beef should be with the AI companies. They sign contracts that say their likeness can be used in perpetuity. A horrible contract. A shitty deal... BUT THEY SIGNED OFF ON IT. That's not taking someone's likeness without permission. They signed on that dotted line.

Also let me make this clear since people like you always skip this part. I AM NOT SIDING WITH MULTI-BILLIONAIRES WHO DON'T PAY PEOPLE WHAT THEY'RE WORTH.

Also again, this isn't Important to me or my family. When workers strike for better pay in other jobs it doesn't get this kind of attention. When teachers of special needs kids, or people working on dangerous jobs ask for a pay increase they get no attention. And these people are essential.

Speaking of essential workers I seem to remember people in Hollywood and social media telling those people they should lose their livelihood or even die for refusing an experimental shot.

I tackle it by order of importance. An over worked, underpaid person who saves lives... Has my attention. A mediocre writer or actor who has given us empty, lame TV shows and movies bad mouthing someone who disagrees with their tactics... I don't really care. Pay them what they're worth, but don't expect me to march for or with them.

@Fares - sorry, but I disagree with you. That means you're worse than Hitler and I will do everything in my power to publicly shame you /s

@ShimmyShimmyYA - ...why can't we just say "I disagree" and move on? Why do we have to take a disagreement so offensively?

@ShimmyShimmyYA - first these two are blatantly insulting him over his opinion, and you're claiming he failed the union over his opinion.

@ShimmyShimmyYA - ...how did he insult the union? He just doesn't like the idea of the strike.

And he is unified in their stance. Just not in their methods.

@ShimmyShimmyYA - 1) he's not. He's simply disagreeing with the method they're doing it. And he's being extremely respectful about it, unlike all of you actively insulting him. Support doesn't mean he fully agrees with everything you do. And it's foolish for us to try and make that argument.

2) that's not the stance. That's the method. The stance is the pay isn't fair and they have a standard of where the pay should go (there's also a lot more than that, but whatever). The strike is purely the method of getting what they want.

Are you seriously telling me anyone in the union would care if they could get their fair pay in a reasonable time if it meant not striking?

3) his statement: everything we're asking for is totally reasonable, but how's about thinking up a different negotiation strategy. Striking is pretty extreme.

4) if by on board, you mean the strike yes. But if you mean the union he supports it.

@ShimmyShimmyYA - hid exact words, "I support my union". My God. This all or nothing mentality is ridiculous.

And no, the method is not synonymous with the stance. For example, my stance is people should be using preferred pronouns. However, that doesn't mean I support the method many are trying to do which is that pronouns should be legislated and considered hate speech. We have the same stance, but I thoroughly disagree with the method.

But as for your example, if others in your group of non disruptors proposed a protest to eliminate disruptions, would you not consider interjection? Or are you just going to mindlessly go along with it because others that don't believe in disruptions are also proposing. (Also, your example didn't even include a method, just the absence of one).

As for our history, that's highly debatable with just as much instances of it not being true. Hell, the civil war started over the south disrupting things when talks of outlawing slaves came up. And it resolved by the north just abolishing slavery. Or Jan 6th. Or the Vietnam War. Or Hitler and his plans for the perfect race. It's a hail Mary, not an instant win button.

@ShimmyShimmyYA - ...yes. he supports the union but not the strike...thanks for reminding me of my point, but that doesn't change my stance.

As for your example, what if a butcher operated under a policy where he only sells animal products that have died in natural humane ways that don't match the definition of slaughter he uses? Or maybe he's a butcher who sells lab grown meat? Or plant based beyond meat?

Are you starting to see how reductive this stance is?

And he supports what the end goal of the group. That's literally all they care about. Again, if you can guarantee a way for the union to get exactly what they want fast without striking, do you think anyone would still be striking? If not, then that's literally amell's point. He simply believes there's a better way. If so, then you're admitting the strike is pointless, PROVING amell's point.

@santoanderson - ...and these comments are? Ffs.