[deleted] t1_jcpas3o wrote
It sucks, but it's worth it for them to finally cut ties with this one. There are always more world-class sopranos waiting in the wings. Every performer should keep this in mind.
Diva2themax t1_jcs44jc wrote
She disappointed me so much with her antics over lockdown & then this. I'm glad I saw her live several times honestly the voice is gorgeous & she is really great in the right role. But so long Anna! She acted like a petulant brat over this & her trashy husband is no better. Glad we're rid of him too.
Shortthelongs t1_jcpwii6 wrote
Why, because she's Russian?
"Netrebko had endorsed Putin for president in 2012, but denounced the war in February and later distanced herself from Putin. Her statements led her to be ousted from her Russian contracts and called a traitor."
[deleted] t1_jcq301q wrote
There's a lot more to it than these two sentences. She has close ties to Vladimir Putin and her denouncement of the war was a single statement amid a sea of others that were pro-Putin on her social media. Even her denouncement last February was halfhearted and with plenty of "buts".
From the NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/22/arts/music/anna-netrebko-opera-putin-russia.html
The Met has been trying to deal with her for a while. Since the annexation of Crimea and when the war was limited to Russian-backed separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk, she has been very vocal on her social media in support of the separatists and Vladimir Putin.
The Met made the decision not to engage her during the war because she continues to wholeheartedly support Putin, her Feb. 26 "denouncement" notwithstanding.
It was the right move, albeit expensive. The Met Opera has a bigger budget than any other American nonprofit performing arts organization, and they can't employ outspoken Putin supporters. There are other sopranos.
dele7ed OP t1_jcq9jgh wrote
So much for “freedom of speech”… Shall we also put her in jail?
crackhead1 t1_jcqdoyz wrote
Freedom of speech doesn’t guarantee employment at a private institution if they don’t like what you have to say, and what you represent. No one is arresting her for expressing her views.
dele7ed OP t1_jcqj03j wrote
Your counter argument is good, the trend is a shitty one though. Canceling people’s contracts based on their views and not professional performance is a straight way to… becoming Putin’s Russia in no time.
[deleted] t1_jcqrzto wrote
No it's not. Have you ever had a job?
[deleted] t1_jcqvboi wrote
[deleted]
dele7ed OP t1_jcqvd2z wrote
In the last 25 years I had more jobs than number of days since you signed up here on Reddit.
Important-Ad1871 t1_jcr6w48 wrote
You’ve had 90 jobs in 25 years?
That’s a new one every quarter, you must be a terrible employee
dele7ed OP t1_jcry252 wrote
As a carpenter I finished more than a hundred jobs in the time period. What about you, sir? Have you done even one day of physical labor, Mr. Important?
Important-Ad1871 t1_jcs50wa wrote
Lmao I knew it was gonna be some stupid semantic response like this
[deleted] t1_jcr4x4i wrote
Good! Then you know!
Jintoboy t1_jcrljnb wrote
I mean let's say you post a screed on Facebook or rant on Twitter regarding how bad your employer is, and how no vendor or customer in their right mind should work with them.
Do you think that would go over well? Do you think that won't result in termination or disciplinary action in most cases?
tuberosum t1_jctkgd1 wrote
> Canceling people’s contracts based on their views and not professional performance is a straight way to… becoming Putin’s Russia in no time.
Considering that NYS, along with many states in the US, has been an at will employment state where you could be fired for any reason whatsoever at any time (barring protected classes, of which political preference isn't one), we've long since crossed the Rubicon on being like Putin's Russia by your logic.
To put it simply, your employer can fire you for wearing the wrong color T-shirt or because they don't like the buckle on your belt if they so want to.
[deleted] t1_jcr9qg2 wrote
[removed]
112-411 t1_jd6jl41 wrote
Freedom of speech refers to the first amendment of the United States Constitution. It’s one sentence. I suggest you read it.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments