Well this blows... there's no way the first 2 would have been as good as they were without him. Hope they can find a worthy replacement to take up that hefty mantle.
This is something I personally can't make any sense of... Disney, perfectly aware of, hires a guy who wrote the script for "Tromeo and Julette" and created web series "James Gunn's PG Porn" and then fires said person over offensive twitter jokes from a decade ago, when Gunn was not only not a celebrity, but had absolutely no ties with Disney...
If this won't reveal as some sort of false pretense justification for discontinuing contract, then from where I stand it looks like there is something absolutely terrifying and kind of Orwell-meets-idiocracy going on with western "perpetually offended" public opinion leading to stories like this one. I'm recently rewatching Monty Python Flying Circuss on Netflix and I repeatedly wonder, sometimes couple of times per episode, when will this show be banned and all recordings burnt and erased from history for deliberately offending everyone and everything that can be offended.
I'm not defending bad taste jokes, I'm amazed and terrified at the same time, that anyone can think that making bad jokes a decade ago (especially by someone who was deliberately offensive during times when offensive jokes were demanded by audience and a mainstay of stand-up comedy artists) is good enough reason to end a contract. He did not post those tweets yesterday... Where is room for any character development and betterment if we are to be held responsible for jokes made 1/5th of a lifetime ago? Seriously... Am I to believe that from this day onwards Disney is going to only hire people with spotless history?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Sex jokes are one thing. The gods I don’t believe in know I’ve a twisted sense of humour.
But making jokes about kiddy fiddling? Yeah. Not at all funny,
There's some pretty good pedophile jokes out there you're missing out on and just because someone jokes about pedophilia doesn't mean they endorse it, don't take it seriously, that the joke is even pro-pedophilia to begin with, etc.
Made distasteful crass jokes about pedophila and the likes.
I'm not linking it here. It's bad.
Where can I find out specifics? I mean, lots of people tell really dark, tasteless jokes, and no one considers it an irredeemable flaw in their character. Was he putting out some Bob Sagat material? Worse?
Made distasteful crass jokes about pedophila and the likes.
I'm not linking it here. It's bad.
Where can I find out specifics? I mean, lots of people tell really dark, tasteless jokes, and no one considers it an irredeemable flaw in their character. Was he putting out some Bob Sagat material? Worse?
I want a full quote too, just saying it was offensive or it was about pedophilia means nothing to me if there's no context.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Sex jokes are one thing. The gods I don’t believe in know I’ve a twisted sense of humour.
But making jokes about kiddy fiddling? Yeah. Not at all funny,
You've just not heard the right ones, maybe. People use humor to deflate horror, which means there are jokes about the most horrible things, and some of them are funny.
I'd never want harm to come to any child if it could be avoided, and am nauseated reading about many things that happen in real life, yet somehow I laugh at (well told) dead baby jokes.
There are no off limits jokes. The idea that some dumb joke you said years ago can come back and get you fired is one of the dumbest things in the world and continues to prove, yet again, that:
1. Twitter is digital cancer. 2. Twitter needs to die a quick and inglorious death.
Of course, the hand-wringing of a few internet left-wing critics is hilarious. You know damned well that if Gunn was even slightly right of centre they'd be the ones waving the pitchforks.
The lesson to learn from these idiots?
"It's ok when we do it to them, but not ok when they do it to us!"
I think a lot of entertainers use twitter to promote their stuff so it does have some use, also being fired for something that you said years ago doesn't sit too well for me like the views I had at 15 (10 years ago) are very different from the ones I have now so with enough time people can go
through dramatic changes, so judging them on what they said or did years ago I don't think is totally fair. I don't think this should be made into right/left thing, one because it causes unnecessary animosity and two I can find probably just as many examples of right wingers being overly
offended or super sensitive despite their hypocritical rhetoric of calling liberals "special snowflakes". The reality is we all have issues that we care about, sensitivities, certain things that offend us, etc I mean I have harder time getting a laugh out of the mentally handicap then probably most
others (not saying it never happens). But that doesn't mean I don't think you should never joke about it just cause I have certain sensitivities, plus if I watch a comedic performance and I laughed at or liked 80% or more of the material then that's good enough for me it's too much to expect
comedy to perfectly cater to my idiosyncratic tastes.
Gee, a company that built an empire off of providing entertainment for children has an extreme reaction to unearthed pedophilia jokes from someone it employs. Let me put my shocked face on.
Skaorn wrote: Gee, a company that built an empire off of providing entertainment for children has an extreme reaction to unearthed pedophilia jokes from someone it employs. Let me put my shocked face on.
You should, they have a history of employing actual pedos and keeping them, but are ditching Gunn for joking about it.
I haven't seen the tweets and I have no desire to search for them. I have really no comment on this event in and of itself, but feel compelled to agree with Ouze and Crismon Devil.
Twitter as a platform for discussion is garbage, nothing really good appears to come from it, and the world would be a better place without it. Nothing of value would be lost if it disappeared tomorrow.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Sex jokes are one thing. The gods I don’t believe in know I’ve a twisted sense of humour.
But making jokes about kiddy fiddling? Yeah. Not at all funny,
I mean, that's just wrong. I can think of at least five Frankie Boyle jokes that relate to paedophilia that were total howlers, one of them had an entire auditorium in such stitches he had to pause his routine to let us all take a breath.
Disney's actions in the context of them striving to maintain a spotless "family friendly" image(note: image, ie perception, anyone paying attention knows of their many excesses and hypocrisies, but that's not We Timmy's mum going to see the latest Pixar film and that's who this kind of damage control is aimed at) and the current climate of Guilt by Accusation are understandable, but it's still extremely depressing.
Here's my issue with this...
Consider your job. Now imagine if something you said or did before you got that job suddenly come to light and is related back to your current boss. Maybe it was that you catcalled a woman. Maybe you made an off the cuff remark about another person. Maybe you downed 10 tequila shots, took your shirt off and danced in the middle of the street at 3am.
Doesn't matter what it was. Would your boss be justified in firing you as soon as they knew about it, no matter how far in your past it was?
Even the Pope would tell you he wasn't a saint when he was younger.
What Disney did was wrong. What Gunn posted was wrong too, but there has to be some kind of limit on how far back some offenses can be dragged up from.
And the "jokes", were neither that offensive (heard worse from know comedians) or that good.
They were... mostly forgettable.
Mod, please delete if this is inappropriate to post, even for purpose of discussion.
Spoilered for obvious reasons. <Removed due to language>
I mean, yeah, looking at these all lined up, one would think that Gunn had some serious issues. However - context is important. I can't prove this, but I don't think these comments were all made at the same time, and certainly not in isolation.
It's obvious to me that these comments are made as shock "humour". If they are or not, that's subjective, but considering Gunn himself publicly apologised and explained himself over the tweets before he was even with Disney is enough reason that he shouldn't be fired. Under the same vein, RDJ (the lynchpin of the MCU, according to many people) should be fired for his drug problems. And no-one's advocating for that.
Similarly, Walt Disney himself hardly had a spotless record. Are Disney abandoning that? Are they firing the undoubtedly present ACTUAL paedophiles working for them? No - this is simply appeasement. Appeasement, funnily enough, to someone who's own comments on rape and suchlike are worse, in my eyes, because they're clearly not jokes.
It shouldn't be hard to see why this is an utter sham. Gunn's a vocal anti-Trump advocate. Some Trump supporters go through his twitter, over a decade old-tweets, take them out of context, ignore the apologies and renouncement of them, and shout as loud as they can. Disney panics, goes into short-term appeasment strategies, and treats it all as "collateral damage". If Disney was actually being morally righteous, the Paul Brothers wouldn't even have been hired by them in the first place, RDJ would also never have been Iron Man, and Disney would have some REAL explaining to do, regarding Walt Disney's own beliefs and frankly racist caricatures in their own material.
The fact that comments you make, off colour as they were, but clearly in jest, over a decade ago that you have publicly renounced can be used by someone to silence your political voice and get you fired terrifies me, as a free speaking citizen.
Well it took me all of 10 seconds on the googlebox to find a story that had a screengrab of some of the tweets in the question (a lot were just crude) - I'd hesitate to use the word 'joke' for any of them though. I don't believe any subject should be taboo for comedy (or that there's such a thing as 'too soon'), but it's important that things are done in an appropriate context. Frankie Boyle is pretty popular (personally I''m not a fan but I don't dislike him) and is known for being fairly offensive in his shows but if he was just walking round a supermarket going up to people and saying the lines he does I doubt anybody would be finding it funny, even if you were watching on.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Forgot to mention that I don't even like the GotG series.
Well it took me all of 10 seconds on the googlebox to find a story that had a screengrab of some of the tweets in the question (a lot were just crude) - I'd hesitate to use the word 'joke' for any of them though. I don't believe any subject should be taboo for comedy (or that there's such a thing as 'too soon'), but it's important that things are done in an appropriate context. Frankie Boyle is pretty popular (personally I''m not a fan but I don't dislike him) and is known for being fairly offensive in his shows but if he was just walking round a supermarket going up to people and saying the lines he does I doubt anybody would be finding it funny, even if you were watching on.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Forgot to mention that I don't even like the GotG series.
Twitter may be public, but it's hardly walking up to people on the street, the end user is in full and complete control over who they talk to and what they see. Anyone who found his remarks too much would surely have known that after the very first, at most the second, so if they A: followed someone who at the time was apparently pretty crass and edgelordy generally and B: stuck around after seeing the first "joke" or two, then their continued state of offendedness is entirely on them.
Frankie, for example, was hardly a wallflower on his social media when I still used twitter, and anyone who chucked a hissy was quite rightly told "don't follow me then".
Those tweets aren't particularly funny, but they're pretty evidently not meant to be serious, even these days they don't even begin to approach a Poe's Law situation and the idea some bad jokes in poor taste made well over a decade ago should be grounds for sacking somebody is ridiculous, this isn't like that Arenanet developer who was actively attacking people in total seriousness while presently employed by the company that sacked her and in relation to one of that company's products.
I mean think about the kind of precedent this is setting. There's already evidence developing that trying to live up to the "curated you" that social media encourages people to present to the world is having a damaging impact on young people's psychology, and now we're going to tell them "oh yeah, and if you post anything even remotely controversial even in jest or as sarcasm, then years from now you might get the sack for it"? Even a lot of actual serious criminal offences have a statute of limitation on them, but people will be held responsible for gakky edgy jokes forever?
If we're going to live in a society where privacy and online anonymity are increasingly things of the past(a change for the worse as far as I'm concerned) and more & more of our social and professional lives require connectivity, then we have to move past this ridiculous idea that because something was written down online it somehow has more weight than something said aloud. I mean, can you image the reaction if a company tried to fire somebody because a random third party had told them that their employee once told a tasteless joke in the local pub?
Yodhrin wrote: I mean, can you image the reaction if a company tried to fire somebody because a random third party had told them that their employee once told a tasteless joke in the local pub?
Exactly.
And considering that the "third party" in this case has A, said questionable things which are quite obviously not intended in the same manner (Gunn's tweets are clearly meant in parody and mocking, whereas the tweets about date rape lack the "jest" of the aforementioned), and B, almost unabashedly made not out of civil duty to Disney, but made to silence Gunn's political views, it should be clear that these accusations are ridiculous.
This whole thing is so clearly politically motivated. I’m genuinely saddened that Disney are such cowards that they gave in to this obvious and deliberate attempt to damage someone’s career.
Oh well, the alt right just gave another reason to hate them. As if there weren’t enough already.
Well it took me all of 10 seconds on the googlebox to find a story that had a screengrab of some of the tweets in the question (a lot were just crude) - I'd hesitate to use the word 'joke' for any of them though. I don't believe any subject should be taboo for comedy (or that there's such a thing as 'too soon'), but it's important that things are done in an appropriate context. Frankie Boyle is pretty popular (personally I''m not a fan but I don't dislike him) and is known for being fairly offensive in his shows but if he was just walking round a supermarket going up to people and saying the lines he does I doubt anybody would be finding it funny, even if you were watching on.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Forgot to mention that I don't even like the GotG series.
Twitter may be public, but it's hardly walking up to people on the street, the end user is in full and complete control over who they talk to and what they see. Anyone who found his remarks too much would surely have known that after the very first, at most the second, so if they A: followed someone who at the time was apparently pretty crass and edgelordy generally and B: stuck around after seeing the first "joke" or two, then their continued state of offendedness is entirely on them.
Frankie, for example, was hardly a wallflower on his social media when I still used twitter, and anyone who chucked a hissy was quite rightly told "don't follow me then".
Those tweets aren't particularly funny, but they're pretty evidently not meant to be serious, even these days they don't even begin to approach a Poe's Law situation and the idea some bad jokes in poor taste made well over a decade ago should be grounds for sacking somebody is ridiculous, this isn't like that Arenanet developer who was actively attacking people in total seriousness while presently employed by the company that sacked her and in relation to one of that company's products.
I mean think about the kind of precedent this is setting. There's already evidence developing that trying to live up to the "curated you" that social media encourages people to present to the world is having a damaging impact on young people's psychology, and now we're going to tell them "oh yeah, and if you post anything even remotely controversial even in jest or as sarcasm, then years from now you might get the sack for it"? Even a lot of actual serious criminal offences have a statute of limitation on them, but people will be held responsible for gakky edgy jokes forever?
If we're going to live in a society where privacy and online anonymity are increasingly things of the past(a change for the worse as far as I'm concerned) and more & more of our social and professional lives require connectivity, then we have to move past this ridiculous idea that because something was written down online it somehow has more weight than something said aloud. I mean, can you image the reaction if a company tried to fire somebody because a random third party had told them that their employee once told a tasteless joke in the local pub?
From my understanding of German labour law, you could not be fired for something like this in Germany. Something which breaks the law here, like posting Nazi propaganda, yes, but just for tasteless but not illegal online comments, no. Not every country has such lax employment law as the US, and this is a good reason to keep both employment law and privacy law robust. In short, Scotland should leg it out of the UK and rejoin the EU to avoid your nightmare dystopia future!
H.B.M.C. wrote: Of course, the hand-wringing of a few internet left-wing critics is hilarious. You know damned well that if Gunn was even slightly right of centre they'd be the ones waving the pitchforks.
The lesson to learn from these idiots?
"It's ok when we do it to them, but not ok when they do it to us!"
Funny that. For me the lesson learned is that right wing idiots are all against “PC culture” and all for “free speech” up until it can be used to attack someone left wing, and then those principles fly away very fast.
“Freedom of speech is when we have the right to say anything without consequences, but not anyone else”.
I don't really care about James Gunn being fired btw.
Social media is where stupid people go to get fired. They can't fire you for tasteless comments you made on Twitter ten years ago if you never go on Twitter in the first place. Never post anything online that you wouldn't want the Pope to see, because no matter what, it will come back to haunt you. It's easier just to not post anything, that way you don't have to worry about what stupid thing from your past will come back to get you years later.
Okay, so firstly, jokes are just jokes. People who take jokes seriously are really sad. That said, the jokes in question were like really bad. It is so easy to make a hilarious pedophile joke, but this guy completely fails at it. Such incompetence is perfectly good grounds to get fired in my opinion.
But in all seriousness, some of these 'jokes' don't really seem very much like jokes to me. How is saying that going to a NAMBLA meeting made you feel 'ok being who I am' and saying that those guys are still your best friends a joke? That sounds more like he is actually struggling with pedophilia for real.
squidhills wrote: Social media is where stupid people go to get fired. They can't fire you for tasteless comments you made on Twitter ten years ago if you never go on Twitter in the first place. Never post anything online that you wouldn't want the Pope to see, because no matter what, it will come back to haunt you. It's easier just to not post anything, that way you don't have to worry about what stupid thing from your past will come back to get you years later.
In this case, I think "Never post anything online that you wouldn't want the Pope to see." is not such good advice.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Of course, the hand-wringing of a few internet left-wing critics is hilarious. You know damned well that if Gunn was even slightly right of centre they'd be the ones waving the pitchforks.
The lesson to learn from these idiots?
"It's ok when we do it to them, but not ok when they do it to us!"
Funny that. For me the lesson learned is that right wing idiots are all against “PC culture” and all for “free speech” up until it can be used to attack someone left wing, and then those principles fly away very fast.
“Freedom of speech is when we have the right to say anything without consequences, but not anyone else”.
No truer word was ever spoken.
This is just vile. Somebody doesn’t like Gunn’s politics, so they go out of their way to ruin his career. Exactly what the right continuously accuse the PC culture of the left of doing. The hypocrisy of the right is staggering.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Sex jokes are one thing. The gods I don’t believe in know I’ve a twisted sense of humour.
But making jokes about kiddy fiddling? Yeah. Not at all funny,
There's some pretty good pedophile jokes out there you're missing out on and just because someone jokes about pedophilia doesn't mean they endorse it, don't take it seriously, that the joke is even pro-pedophilia to begin with, etc.
Pedophile s should be exterminated. People who joke about it should be publicly flogged. *
* Not really. I am sure this is just a pretext for something else.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Of course, the hand-wringing of a few internet left-wing critics is hilarious. You know damned well that if Gunn was even slightly right of centre they'd be the ones waving the pitchforks.
The lesson to learn from these idiots?
"It's ok when we do it to them, but not ok when they do it to us!"
Funny that. For me the lesson learned is that right wing idiots are all against “PC culture” and all for “free speech” up until it can be used to attack someone left wing, and then those principles fly away very fast.
“Freedom of speech is when we have the right to say anything without consequences, but not anyone else”.
No truer word was ever spoken.
This is just vile. Somebody doesn’t like Gunn’s politics, so they go out of their way to ruin his career. Exactly what the right continuously accuse the PC culture of the left of doing. The hypocrisy of the right is staggering.
So you are arguing left-wingers are ok with pedophile jokes. That's an interesting position.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Sex jokes are one thing. The gods I don’t believe in know I’ve a twisted sense of humour.
But making jokes about kiddy fiddling? Yeah. Not at all funny,
There's some pretty good pedophile jokes out there you're missing out on and just because someone jokes about pedophilia doesn't mean they endorse it, don't take it seriously, that the joke is even pro-pedophilia to begin with, etc.
Pedophile s should be exterminated. People who joke about it should be publicly flogged. *
* Not really. I am sure this is just a pretext for something else.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Of course, the hand-wringing of a few internet left-wing critics is hilarious. You know damned well that if Gunn was even slightly right of centre they'd be the ones waving the pitchforks.
The lesson to learn from these idiots?
"It's ok when we do it to them, but not ok when they do it to us!"
Funny that. For me the lesson learned is that right wing idiots are all against “PC culture” and all for “free speech” up until it can be used to attack someone left wing, and then those principles fly away very fast.
“Freedom of speech is when we have the right to say anything without consequences, but not anyone else”.
No truer word was ever spoken.
This is just vile. Somebody doesn’t like Gunn’s politics, so they go out of their way to ruin his career. Exactly what the right continuously accuse the PC culture of the left of doing. The hypocrisy of the right is staggering.
So you are arguing left-wingers are ok with pedophile jokes. That's an interesting position.
Nice straw man there. That’s not what I’m arguing at all and you know it. I’m arguing that the alt right are hypocrites when they talk about free speech but use tactics like this to silence critics.
Skaorn wrote: Gee, a company that built an empire off of providing entertainment for children has an extreme reaction to unearthed pedophilia jokes from someone it employs. Let me put my shocked face on.
You know damn well that Disney knew all about these tweets and didn't give a crap until now.
Skaorn wrote: Gee, a company that built an empire off of providing entertainment for children has an extreme reaction to unearthed pedophilia jokes from someone it employs. Let me put my shocked face on.
You know damn well that Disney knew all about these tweets and didn't give a crap until now.
I'm sure Disney knew. I'm also sure that they didn't really care because Gunn had publicly apologised and not said anything of the sort for years.
Unfortunately, they happened to lose their spine, to cash in on some quick and easy appeasement.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Sex jokes are one thing. The gods I don’t believe in know I’ve a twisted sense of humour.
But making jokes about kiddy fiddling? Yeah. Not at all funny,
There's some pretty good pedophile jokes out there you're missing out on and just because someone jokes about pedophilia doesn't mean they endorse it, don't take it seriously, that the joke is even pro-pedophilia to begin with, etc.
Pedophile s should be exterminated. People who joke about it should be publicly flogged. *
* Not really. I am sure this is just a pretext for something else.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Of course, the hand-wringing of a few internet left-wing critics is hilarious. You know damned well that if Gunn was even slightly right of centre they'd be the ones waving the pitchforks.
The lesson to learn from these idiots?
"It's ok when we do it to them, but not ok when they do it to us!"
Funny that. For me the lesson learned is that right wing idiots are all against “PC culture” and all for “free speech” up until it can be used to attack someone left wing, and then those principles fly away very fast.
“Freedom of speech is when we have the right to say anything without consequences, but not anyone else”.
No truer word was ever spoken.
This is just vile. Somebody doesn’t like Gunn’s politics, so they go out of their way to ruin his career. Exactly what the right continuously accuse the PC culture of the left of doing. The hypocrisy of the right is staggering.
So you are arguing left-wingers are ok with pedophile jokes. That's an interesting position.
I'm ok with pedophile jokes, just like I'm ok with holocaust, 9/11, vietnam, cancer, alzheimer, etc... jokes. Jokes are jokes. Humour shouldn't have more limits than the context where you have using it (Going t o a child hospital to say cancer jokes... meh)
Skaorn wrote: Gee, a company that built an empire off of providing entertainment for children has an extreme reaction to unearthed pedophilia jokes from someone it employs. Let me put my shocked face on.
You know damn well that Disney knew all about these tweets and didn't give a crap until now.
Gunn was already publicly shamed and apologized for this six years ago. It's not 'news' and Disney most certainly knew of it when they hired him.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Of course, the hand-wringing of a few internet left-wing critics is hilarious. You know damned well that if Gunn was even slightly right of centre they'd be the ones waving the pitchforks.
The lesson to learn from these idiots?
"It's ok when we do it to them, but not ok when they do it to us!"
Funny that. For me the lesson learned is that right wing idiots are all against “PC culture” and all for “free speech” up until it can be used to attack someone left wing, and then those principles fly away very fast.
“Freedom of speech is when we have the right to say anything without consequences, but not anyone else”.
I don't really care about James Gunn being fired btw.
Uh... the left/liberals has pushed this waaaay before the right wingers starting pushing back. They're attempting to apply the same "rules" to everyone.
Personally, I think this raginghatemob going after people's job is stupid... unless there's concrete evidence that they've perpetuated these awful deeds.
Skaorn wrote: Gee, a company that built an empire off of providing entertainment for children has an extreme reaction to unearthed pedophilia jokes from someone it employs. Let me put my shocked face on.
You know damn well that Disney knew all about these tweets and didn't give a crap until now.
I know that... in some ways you have to sorta feel for Disney. They thought Gunn's apology buried that sordid history... however, Disney... the maker of kids movies does have a brand they need to protect.
whembly wrote: Uh... the left/liberals has pushed this waaaay before the right wingers starting pushing back. They're attempting to apply the same "rules" to everyone.
Personally, I think this raginghatemob going after people's job is stupid... unless there's concrete evidence that they've perpetuated these awful deeds.
Just talking about it is enough to justify that. Context be damned.
(Note that I still think what Gunn said is pretty unfunny, and very crude. However, it is quite obviously an attempt at humour, and he knew this long before it came to attention and publicly denounced and apologised for it.)
Again, Disney have every right to fire who they want. They're the employers, and it's all up to them. However, it doesn't mean that they can't be criticised for it, for various factors such as the obvious political message of it, to Disney's own shady history.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: I know that... in some ways you have to sorta feel for Disney. They thought Gunn's apology buried that sordid history... however, Disney... the maker of kids movies does have a brand they need to protect.
There's plenty of things that Disney themselves have done that's just as bad, if not worse. Hiring Jake/Logan Paul, Walt himself, various racist caricatures in their cartoons...
H.B.M.C. wrote: Of course, the hand-wringing of a few internet left-wing critics is hilarious. You know damned well that if Gunn was even slightly right of centre they'd be the ones waving the pitchforks.
The lesson to learn from these idiots?
"It's ok when we do it to them, but not ok when they do it to us!"
Funny that. For me the lesson learned is that right wing idiots are all against “PC culture” and all for “free speech” up until it can be used to attack someone left wing, and then those principles fly away very fast.
“Freedom of speech is when we have the right to say anything without consequences, but not anyone else”.
I don't really care about James Gunn being fired btw.
Uh... the left/liberals has pushed this waaaay before the right wingers starting pushing back. They're attempting to apply the same "rules" to everyone.
Personally, I think this raginghatemob going after people's job is stupid... unless there's concrete evidence that they've perpetuated these awful deeds.
You’re correct that elements of the left have behaved in this shameful way (ie the hate mob of the morally outraged), but they’re not the ones who’ve always banged on in favour of free speech and against PC culture. At least the left aren’t hypocrites about their crappy behaviour.
But yeah, the raging hate mob moral minority exists at both extremes of politics and it’s crap on both sides. No wonder so many ordinary, decent, level headed people are turned off from politics these days.
I’m still annoyed at Disney for caving into this. I doubt most people know or care what James Gunn said on his twitter years ago. Lots of Marvel fans do care however, that he won’t be directing the third movie in one of the MCU’s best and most popular series.
Disney has a brand to protect. They want to make sure that any and all Google searches for Disney brands result in nothing questionable for young eyes. Just like how GW wants all of your Google searches for "Space Marines" to lead only to GW websites and products.
But that's not the way the internet works. Firing Gunn doesn't make the controversy go away. In fact, much like the Streisand Effect, firing him as made it front page headlines. Now, if some 10-year-old asks Alexa/Siri about the latest Guardians of the Galaxy news, they're going to get something quite different from what Disney wants them to see/hear.
Almost all jokes make fun of something or someone. If you are open to making fun of one subsect of the community, you better own it and be open to ALL groups.
I'll fully admit I've made cancer jokes, adultery jokes, jokes about murder, jokes about culture. I'm a bit tubby and I make fatty jokes.
There is a difference between telling a joke for the intent of shock humor/dark humor, and doing it to harass someone. Making a dead-baby joke to a woman that just lost a child should get you slapped. Making a joke about yourself or your own tragedy is usually fair game.
All this said, making a joke about something evil is NEVER as bad (or even close to) actually doing something evil. The Entertainment Industry is more than happy to employ individuals that have actually committed vial acts, including admitting to sexual assault (Polanski, Amy Schumer, etc.) Firing someone for a tasteless joke while still backing these losers is mind numbing.
As for those that dug up this dirt, shame on them. Shame on anyone that does it, and I don't care what side you are on politically.
whembly wrote: Uh... the left/liberals has pushed this waaaay before the right wingers starting pushing back.
Well, depends. Getting people fired from their job and make it impossible for them to find another one, especially in Hollywood? Classic US right wing *cough* mccarty *cough*
cuda1179 wrote: If you are open to making fun of one subsect of the community, you better own it and be open to ALL groups.
Sorry but no, not all groups are the same and therefore not all groups should be treated the same.
cuda1179 wrote: If you are open to making fun of one subsect of the community, you better own it and be open to ALL groups.
Sorry but no, not all groups are the same and therefore not all groups should be treated the same.
Humour should not have limits. At the same time, we have something great called respect, and humour depends of context. Nobody should be put into jail or receive some form of punishement for making a joke (Unless it enters into acose). But that does not mean making a bad joke where you shouldn't do it can't make you pay for it socially. A funeral is not the best place to make a tasteless joke, for example. Making jokes about a black man that has just recently shoot by the police can be distasteful, putting an example of something that can and probably has happened recently, but that does not mean humour should have boundaries.
"Oh, so you are part of this group, and this other group, you are allowed to make jokes about X and Y"... nah, that is no cool. Of course, I woulnd't go to a group of black people and tell N word jokes (Mainly because in spanish we don't use that word at all), but not because I believe humour should have limitations, but because I have common sense and want to mainatin my body integrity
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Funny that. For me the lesson learned is that right wing idiots are all against “PC culture” and all for “free speech” up until it can be used to attack someone left wing, and then those principles fly away very fast.
cuda1179 wrote: If you are open to making fun of one subsect of the community, you better own it and be open to ALL groups.
Sorry but no, not all groups are the same and therefore not all groups should be treated the same.
Don't you feel it would come across as condescending to handle one group with "kid's gloves" but not others when it comes to jokes? You don't think they have a sense of humour?
The idea that any joke at any human being anywhere means you must be ok with any humor pointed at any human anywhere else in any other context seems like a pretty obvious false equivalency.
Cuda already knows this distinction because he spelled it out later in his post, so the ideas clearly and obviously are in conflict even to him.
The most extraordinary thing is that Trump himself has said or Tweeted many shameful and disgusting things which are not "jokes" and his supporters simply lap it up.
Perhaps it's not extraordinary at all.
Perhaps Trumpists simply are morally bankrupt, with no ethics and no standards of proper behaviour except for "stigginit" to progressives and "Team Red Hurr!"
Ouze wrote: The idea that any joke at any human being anywhere means you must be ok with any humor pointed at any human anywhere else in any other context seems like a pretty obvious false equivalency.
Cuda already knows this distinction because he spelled it out later in his post, so the ideas clearly and obviously are in conflict even to him.
No conflict at all. Any category is a legitimate subject for jokes, though in some very narrow contexts specific jokes at the expense of specific categories might be considered inappropriate or impolite.
What they're objecting to, I suspect, is this farcical notion that has taken hold on the identity-left that "only X's can comment on things that relate to X's, discuss X's, research things related to X's, write fiction about X's, or make jokes about X's - if Y's or Z's do any of that then they're bad-wrong people and probably some kind of crypto-bigot", and the neopuritan tendency to declare whole subjects off-limits for humour or science or journalism or whatever other subset of thought is producing information they find inconvenient or which makes them uncomfortable. All of which of course is combined with the idea that "punching up" gives you license to discard any restrictions or considerations whatsoever including the ones you attempt to place on others and indulge in gigantic levels of hypocrisy.
Kilkrazy wrote: The most extraordinary thing is that Trump himself has said or Tweeted many shameful and disgusting things which are not "jokes" and his supporters simply lap it up.
Perhaps it's not extraordinary at all.
Perhaps Trumpists simply are morally bankrupt, with no ethics and no standards of proper behaviour except for "stigginit" to progressives and "Team Red Hurr!"
Yes it should. Let me illustrate, with this scene from a movie.
Spoiler:
This was fun but not civilized. We need civilized humor. Humor that isn't shooting people in the face!
(Shooting people in the face in movies is fine though, just to clarify. Talking about shooting people in the face in real life.)
Galas wrote: Nobody should be put into jail or receive some form of punishement for making a joke (Unless it enters into acose).
What's acose? Anyway “it was a joke” shouldn't be protection from punishment if you did something bad and illegal.
Galas wrote: Of course, I woulnd't go to a group of black people and tell N word jokes (Mainly because in spanish we don't use that word at all), but not because I believe humour should have limitations, but because I have common sense and want to mainatin my body integrity
So you would go to some black people and make racist jokes if you believed they couldn't harm you back, is that what you are saying? The only reason you don't make racist joke to black people is because you are afraid they might physically hurt you?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Funny that. For me the lesson learned is that right wing idiots are all against “PC culture” and all for “free speech” up until it can be used to attack someone left wing, and then those principles fly away very fast.
What's the relation between your article about left-wing people and what I just wrote about right-wing people? Or are you arguing that Gunn was targeted by left-wing people? That Cernovich isn't very right-wing and someone who complains about PC stuff?
Hum interesting.
Cheesecat wrote: Don't you feel it would come across as condescending to handle one group with "kid's gloves" but not others when it comes to jokes?
No, really. I feel it would come across as 100% appropriate to take into account the fact that some groups have NOT been handled with kid's gloves by life (or by other humans) when dealing with them. But go tell holocaust survivors some holocaust jokes to show them you aren't condescending toward them I guess?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: What's the relation between your article about left-wing people and what I just wrote about right-wing people?
That they're the same!!!
All this back and forth is nonsense. Both are equally horrible, and equally hypocritical, and Twitter is their weapon of choice.
It's disgusting. We should be better than that, but right now we're stuck in a spiral of vengeful right-wingers and viscous left-wingers. The article was about how anyone can be the victim and anyone can be the victimised. The person on top of the pile one day can slip and find themselves buried under it the next.
So what has this to do with Trump? This who sorry affair began because some vile, right wing creep has set out to dig up dirt on Gunn because Gunn publicly criticised Trump. It’s a hatchet job and it worked. It worked because the bosses at Disney are spineless.
That was an excellent article, HBMC, and I agree - social media shaming / callouts have become basically McCarthyism (as referenced earlier in the thread).
Regardless of political leanings, I think it should stop - it's gotten entirely out of hand. Also, I wonder if stories like this will eventually cause Twitter to lose business... there seems to be very little benefit, and a lot of negatives, to posting on the platform.
This will be slightly off-topic, but since we have arrived at mob mentality and twitter problem, it might be interesting for some of you to look at this from neuroscience (and especially affective neuroscience) perspective. Mob mentality isn't going anywhere, because we are simply becoming technological hive mind - informational bandwidth of typical smartphone is close to that of corpus callosum and daily exposure to information in modern "always online" world is exceeding typical human brains ability to filter out the noise. The reason why twitter hatebombs work, is because short messages are perfectly suited for spreading instantaneous emotional responses (you are able to write and publish a message in highly agitated moment of limbic response before frontal cortex has enough time to rationalize and calm you down) and such "synchronization of emotion" propagates to wide audience in an avalanche like fashion. Just food for thought.
RiTides wrote: That was an excellent article, HBMC, and I agree - social media shaming / callouts have become basically McCarthyism (as referenced earlier in the thread).
Regardless of political leanings, I think it should stop - it's gotten entirely out of hand. Also, I wonder if stories like this will eventually cause Twitter to lose business... there seems to be very little benefit, and a lot of negatives, to posting on the platform.
Note I'm saying this "apolitically" (which I know is hard to believe these days ), but imo the.mob mentality has really gone too far.
I find it useful to look at this phenomenon as an application of game theory. There's winners and losers, rewards and punishments, and strategies for how to maximize impact at work. It plays out differently in academics, corporations, and politics, but there are some commonalities across each.
A lot of it is based on shifting definitions of common words and phrases. 'Harm' is the best example, the idea that being exposed to a particular word or idea - in specific contexts - is inherently harmful. But we've reached the point in corporations where even saying a word to use it as an example is now being construed as causing actual harm to the people who hear it. If not for the people who hear it, for the "brand" or the "culture" or the something else.
Accepting the notion that use of a word causes actual harm to a person can change a lot of things in society. Pretty sure this will lead to a state where speech is unacceptable in a few years.
Yes it should. Let me illustrate, with this scene from a movie.
[spoiler]
This was fun but not civilized. We need civilized humor. Humor that isn't shooting people in the face!
(Shooting people in the face in movies is fine though, just to clarify. Talking about shooting people in the face in real life.)
Galas wrote: Nobody should be put into jail or receive some form of punishement for making a joke (Unless it enters into acose).
What's acose? Anyway “it was a joke” shouldn't be protection from punishment if you did something bad and illegal.
Galas wrote: Of course, I woulnd't go to a group of black people and tell N word jokes (Mainly because in spanish we don't use that word at all), but not because I believe humour should have limitations, but because I have common sense and want to mainatin my body integrity
So you would go to some black people and make racist jokes if you believed they couldn't harm you back, is that what you are saying? The only reason you don't make racist joke to black people is because you are afraid they might physically hurt you?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Funny that. For me the lesson learned is that right wing idiots are all against “PC culture” and all for “free speech” up until it can be used to attack someone left wing, and then those principles fly away very fast.
What's the relation between your article about left-wing people and what I just wrote about right-wing people? Or are you arguing that Gunn was targeted by left-wing people? That Cernovich isn't very right-wing and someone who complains about PC stuff?
Hum interesting.
Cheesecat wrote: Don't you feel it would come across as condescending to handle one group with "kid's gloves" but not others when it comes to jokes?
No, really. I feel it would come across as 100% appropriate to take into account the fact that some groups have NOT been handled with kid's gloves by life (or by other humans) when dealing with them. But go tell holocaust survivors some holocaust jokes to show them you aren't condescending toward them I guess?
I don't say racist jokes to black people because of respect, thats what I was talking when I said common sense. Of course, if that black guy or girl was my friend andif him/her hasn't a problem with it, I would make all kind of jokes.
Kilkrazy wrote: The most extraordinary thing is that Trump himself has said or Tweeted many shameful and disgusting things which are not "jokes" and his supporters simply lap it up.
Perhaps it's not extraordinary at all.
Perhaps Trumpists simply are morally bankrupt, with no ethics and no standards of proper behaviour except for "stigginit" to progressives and "Team Red Hurr!"
And what has any of this got to do with Trump?
Trumpists put together a "best of" reel and whined about it to Disney because Gunn has been critical of Trump.
It really is frustrating because it was the result of a campaign to get him fired. From a guy that propagated pizzagate. They dredged up stuff from 10 years ago that he already apologized for. No one disagrees that the tweets were bad and in bad taste, just that Disney caved to a horrible person about obvious bad attempts of humor.
It stinks that Gunn will not be able to finish his vision for the Guardians of the Galaxy Series and I do not know what positive comes from him being fired.
And I am trying to grok how Roman Polanski and Amy Schumer are in the same sentence....What the hay?
nou wrote: The reason why twitter hatebombs work, is because short messages are perfectly suited for spreading instantaneous emotional responses (you are able to write and publish a message in highly agitated moment of limbic response before frontal cortex has enough time to rationalize and calm you down) and such "synchronization of emotion" propagates to wide audience in an avalanche like fashion. Just food for thought.
Fair enough, but I see no reason why a powerful corporation should cave-in to the noise of few shouty individuals. I understand is a matter of image, but what about send a communicate saying that those were related to a different period of mr. Gunn's professional life, he already apologized, and moved on?
If mob mentality is still behind the corner due to human nature, why accomodate it?
Is there something they know we don't? Or something they already agreed on with mr. Gunn, and he was aware that he was living with a time bomb?
I am still semi-shocked by how un-fun and bad taste some of these jokes are (I kind of explain the first third of the otherwise good GotG2), but I find the perspective of seeing everything censored and pacified in name of avoid being "offensive" quite worrying.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The article was about how anyone can be the victim and anyone can be the victimised. The person on top of the pile one day can slip and find themselves buried under it the next.
Well, I agree that call-out culture that cares more about piling on people than spreading positive change is bad, and that it does happen on the left too much.
(I still don't think that even the people on the left that do it are as bad as Cernovich though, sorry)
RiTides wrote: That was an excellent article, HBMC, and I agree - social media shaming / callouts have become basically McCarthyism (as referenced earlier in the thread).
Well, I haven't lived through McCarthism, but that seems a bit hyperbolic, isn't it? I mean, my grand-father, who was a very brilliant engineer who did great stuff in hydrology, was denied entry to the US for being too left-wing. He wasn't a communist though, especially not one going there to spread seditious ideas, or my family lied to me . I also read about how McCartyism used the contempt of Congress and contempt of court “offenses” to send people in prison…
It's bad but it's not that bad yet.
Galas wrote: I don't say racist jokes to black people because of respect, thats what I was talking when I said common sense.
Okay, then take it this way: some group deserve this respect, and others don't. To take a practical example: you wouldn't disrespect black people that way, but “disrespecting” vegetarians by making jokes about vegetarians wouldn't be nearly as bad. First, the jokes likely wouldn't hurt as much for real historical reasons where vegetarians don't have an history of being oppressed with a legacy that they still have to face, and second because mocking people for their idea is much less bad than mocking them for some part of their identity that they have no control on.
And I say this as a vegetarian myself, who do find the jokes tiring and repetitive. Mocking black people is bad, mocking vegetarian is meh, mocking racists sure please make those jokes!
Galas wrote: For "acose" I wanted to say harassment, sorry
nou wrote: The reason why twitter hatebombs work, is because short messages are perfectly suited for spreading instantaneous emotional responses (you are able to write and publish a message in highly agitated moment of limbic response before frontal cortex has enough time to rationalize and calm you down) and such "synchronization of emotion" propagates to wide audience in an avalanche like fashion. Just food for thought.
Fair enough, but I see no reason why a powerful corporation should cave-in to the noise of few shouty individuals. I understand is a matter of image, but what about send a communicate saying that those were related to a different period of mr. Gunn's professional life, he already apologized, and moved on?
If mob mentality is still behind the corner due to human nature, why accomodate it?
Is there something they know we don't? Or something they already agreed on with mr. Gunn, and he was aware that he was living with a time bomb?
I am still semi-shocked by how un-fun and bad taste some of these jokes are (I kind of explain the first third of the otherwise good GotG2), but I find the perspective of seeing everything censored and pacified in name of avoid being "offensive" quite worrying.
Oh, you misunderstood me - I wasn't defending either Disney or the mob, this was a rather academic reply on the phenomenon of internet era mob mentality and why it is nowadays kind of force of nature. Only that. You can read my responses to the actual topic of firing Gunn on the first page of this thread and I'm very much on the same side as you.
I got it. Sorry for being unclear. I was just wondering if there are more rumors that put pressure on the execs and if this is not (as I believe) the case, when they will learn to do not appease the mob (that is often not even the most numerous component of the fanbase, just the noisiest).
AdeptSister wrote: It really is frustrating because it was the result of a campaign to get him fired. From a guy that propagated pizzagate. They dredged up stuff from 10 years ago that he already apologized for. No one disagrees that the tweets were bad and in bad taste, just that Disney caved to a horrible person about obvious bad attempts of humor.
It stinks that Gunn will not be able to finish his vision for the Guardians of the Galaxy Series and I do not know what positive comes from him being fired.
And I am trying to grok how Roman Polanski and Amy Schumer are in the same sentence....What the hay?
All this said, making a joke about something evil is NEVER as bad (or even close to) actually doing something evil. The Entertainment Industry is more than happy to employ individuals that have actually committed vial acts, including admitting to sexual assault (Polanski, Amy Schumer, etc.) Firing someone for a tasteless joke while still backing these losers is mind numbing.
cuda1179 said that. I don't know why he put Schumer with Polanski...
I got it. Sorry for being unclear. I was just wondering if there are more rumors that put pressure on the execs and if this is not (as I believe) the case, when they will learnt to do not appease the mob (that is often not even the most numerous component of the fanbase, just the noisiest).
I don't know any rumours, but one could create at least marginally plausible "conspiracy theory" that they pulled Gunn out of a hat to draw media attention away from seriously dangerous, seizure inducing Incredibles 2, which could cost them a LOT more money in lawsuits than lowered GotG 3 revenue.
I agree - Twitter shaming / online lynch mob culture needs to end, full stop, regardless of who instigates the mob. It is just way too aggressive now.
To Hybrid above, I don't think comparing it to the development of McCarthyism is exaggerating - it's just not to that stage yet (that is a crazy family experience, by the way!).
AdeptSister wrote: It really is frustrating because it was the result of a campaign to get him fired. From a guy that propagated pizzagate. They dredged up stuff from 10 years ago that he already apologized for. No one disagrees that the tweets were bad and in bad taste, just that Disney caved to a horrible person about obvious bad attempts of humor.
It stinks that Gunn will not be able to finish his vision for the Guardians of the Galaxy Series and I do not know what positive comes from him being fired.
And I am trying to grok how Roman Polanski and Amy Schumer are in the same sentence....What the hay?
What did Amy Schumer do?
Some middling stand up, a mediocre comedy show and some godawful movies?
Jesus dude, did you even read that dribble? They quite literally say you can't rape someone, even if they're drunk, if they still have the ability to slobber out some kind of initiation of intercourse. Men have been convicted of rape for that before. You don't need to be passed out to loose the ability to consent.
It doesn't matter if someone initiated contact. If they are drunk they can't consent, regardless of their actions. Being complacent with what they do with you isn't a defense. Arguably you are the one that is ill informed.
Disney should have defended their stance to hire him, and keep him despite all this. But God forbid showing a backbone against crazies might lose them a dollar.
cuda1179 wrote: Jesus dude, did you even read that dribble? They quite literally say you can't rape someone, even if they're drunk, if they still have the ability to slobber out some kind of initiation of intercourse.
That's not what they said. They point out that rape has a legal definition, and in Maryland, that definition explicitly and clearly indicates that the person performing the sex act cannot be performing it on someone who is not capable of consenting. By no tortured reading is this what happened in this situation. Words have meanings.
If you like, I will stipulate that it's pretty lousy morally if not legally. That being said, and circling back to your original post, it's still night and day from Roman Polanski forcibly raping a child that he drugged and the attempt to link them is pretty weak.
Men have been convicted of rape for attending a booty call and then lying there passively? I guess I wouldn't be shocked if that has happened, but I wouldn't call it justice and I certainly wouldn't demand it become the new standard.
It honestly sounds to me like something any reasonable person would dismiss as an unpleasant but not illegal encounter, but once it becomes an opportunity for political point-scoring suddenly it's a dire crime.
Are disney going to fire themselves for all the racist/ anti-semitic/ misogynistic stuff they have done in the past. Everything should be joked about. The holocaust, pedophiles, rape... preferably all in one great joke together.
RiTides wrote: that is a crazy family experience, by the way!
Nah that's mild. My grand-mother was a German Jew. Once, in France, she was saved from a Gestapo raid because she just didn't wake up when they banged at the door. In Italy she was sometime protect by the cops (so, the original fascist state apparatus) from Germanic antisemites. She was almost expelled from Switzerland, she married my grand-father just in time to be allowed to stay, and she told the immigration officer it was a white wedding just to spite him. That's some crazy family experience. Being prevented from entering the land of the crazies was more like a mild annoyance.
Ouze wrote: They point out that rape has a legal definition, and in Maryland, that definition explicitly and clearly indicates that the person performing the sex act cannot be performing it on someone who is not capable of consenting.
The person who was performing "the sex act" was the guy, and Amy Schumer wasn't incapable of consenting, so no rape by the legal definition.
Spoiler:
I can already start to imagine all the cries about people raping themselves if they masturbate while drunk lol.
BuFFo wrote: 4 pages and not a single link to the quotes and question?
Not even the OP link to CNN gave me a link to the quote in question.
How can you guys have a discussion about something nobody will bring up or talk about? I don't use Twitter and I'm at work on my phone.
Voldemort. That wasn't so hard.
You can find them googlin but they are not dakka-appropriate.
Myself I found them bad taste, but more what an edgy teenager would write and related to another moment of his life and career. A period of his career Disney was well aware of when they hired him, I guess.
For sure not something you should fire a man on, especially 10 years later.
We live in insane times.
BuFFo wrote: 4 pages and not a single link to the quotes and question?
Not even the OP link to CNN gave me a link to the quote in question.
How can you guys have a discussion about something nobody will bring up or talk about? I don't use Twitter and I'm at work on my phone.
Voldemort. That wasn't so hard.
You can find them googlin but they are not dakka-appropriate.
Myself I found them bad taste, but more what an edgy teenager would write and related to another moment of his life and career. A period of his career Disney was well aware of when they hired him, I guess.
For sure not something you should fire a man on, especially 10 years later.
We live in insane times.
They were posted back on page 2 of this thread. Mod removed them for language.
cuda1179 wrote: Jesus dude, did you even read that dribble? They quite literally say you can't rape someone, even if they're drunk, if they still have the ability to slobber out some kind of initiation of intercourse.
That's not what they said. They point out that rape has a legal definition, and in Maryland, that definition explicitly and clearly indicates that the person performing the sex act cannot be performing it on someone who is not capable of consenting. By no tortured reading is this what happened in this situation. Words have meanings.
If you like, I will stipulate that it's pretty lousy morally if not legally. That being said, and circling back to your original post, it's still night and day from Roman Polanski forcibly raping a child that he drugged and the attempt to link them is pretty weak.
For starters, the ONLY way I linked them was that they were both self admitted. Also, the article you quoted is using a VERY twisted interpretation. What they literally state, is that since she was just the one laying there and accepting intercourse from an impaired person, that she is not legally (in the strictest terms of English) guilty. Unfortunately legal precedent isn't really on their side. Maryland laws also forbid performing sex acts on children, but it wouldn't fly to say " I didn't touch her, I just let her touch me".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Men have been convicted of rape for attending a booty call and then lying there passively? .
Men have been convicted for sexual assault for allowing completely drunk girls to perform oral on them.
It's all irrelevant anyway. Ouze's link both misquotes the law and misinterprets it. Maryland Criminal code 3-303-a-ii defines Rape in the Second Degree as "engaging in vaginal intercourse with another 1) without his or her consent by force or threat, 2) with a mentally or physically incapacitated person (includes drunk, high, or unconscious) when the defendant knows of his or her condition, or 3) the victim is under 14 years old and the defendant is at least 4 years older than the victim"
There is no requirement that she be the one to perform the act, only that she willingly participates. She stated that she did know he was drunk, so that satisfies the second condition of the statute.
Also, it seems to me like you have a problem with such draconian rape convictions, except when they affect Amy Schumer, where you want to see her punished to the fullest extent of the law.
Also, there needs to be latitude for reasonable judgement on where the ability to give consent ends and how prior consent works, or else you'll have to arrest the millions of couples who have engaged in drunken sex this year.
Also, it seems to me like you have a problem with such draconian rape convictions, except when they affect Amy Schumer, where you want to see her punished to the fullest extent of the law.
Also, there needs to be latitude for reasonable judgement on where the ability to give consent ends and how prior consent works, or else you'll have to arrest the millions of couples who have engaged in drunken sex this year.
Where do you get that I oppose sexual consent laws/convictions? I do oppose double standards, removal of due process, and kangaroo courts.
Also, (and I'll see if I can find a link) appellate courts ruled a while back that you can give prior consent to sexual activity before being unable to consent. In the case before them a husband was charged with rape for having sex with his unconscious wife (choked her out), filming it, and putting it on the internet. She however agreed to everything before hand and had no complaints.
I agree. I've never been very into social media (Facebook's about the extent if it, and I removed that grom my phone, too), but Twitter has always appeared particularly useless.
H.B.M.C. wrote: There are no off limits jokes. The idea that some dumb joke you said years ago can come back and get you fired is one of the dumbest things in the world and continues to prove, yet again, that:
1. Twitter is digital cancer.
2. Twitter needs to die a quick and inglorious death.
Of course, the hand-wringing of a few internet left-wing critics is hilarious. You know damned well that if Gunn was even slightly right of centre they'd be the ones waving the pitchforks.
The lesson to learn from these idiots?
"It's ok when we do it to them, but not ok when they do it to us!"
Left-wing? Where does that come from?
Seems more like idiots to me who can't take a joke. politics has nothing to do with this.
Its sad though James Gunn is a fantastic director and writer.
Seems more like idiots to me who can't take a joke. politics has nothing to do with this.
Its sad though James Gunn is a fantastic director and writer.
Politics literally has everything to do with it. Gunn was targeted specifically for his political viewpoints and the way he commonly spoke out regarding them.
Dan Harmon, creator of Rick and Morty, deleted his entire Twitter account yesterday because it was filled with years of disgusting tweets which included sex with children and sex with a baby. I guess he needs to be fired from every job he'll ever have for the rest of his life as well?
And Sarah Silverman tweeted to Dan Harmon that pedophilia is perfectly fine. I guess she needs to be unemployed for the rest of her life as well?
It seems to me that the concept of "original sin' runs deep in our culture, and everything you've ever said or done in the past is somehow a direct reflection of how you will always be in the present.
How about we all just assume that everyone on this planet has said something questionable in their past, and just keep the entire planet unemployed. Seems like a nice preventative measure to me.
Thoughts? I'm serious. Either you think people can change as they get older, or people are born a certain way and must be judged their entire life for every fault they'll ever do. Sort of like how certain sections of society will always blame another section of society for past sin such as slavery.
Are we all just guilty of original sin, and can never be forgiven by our peers? And we in turn can never forgive our peers for their sins as well?
Dan Harmon, creator of Rick and Morty, deleted his entire Twitter account yesterday because it was filled with years of disgusting tweets which included sex with children and sex with a baby. I guess he needs to be fired from every job he'll ever have for the rest of his life as well?
And Sarah Silverman tweeted to Dan Harmon that pedophilia is perfectly fine. I guess she needs to be unemployed for the rest of her life as well?
It seems to me that the concept of "original sin' runs deep in our culture, and everything you've ever said or done in the past is somehow a direct reflection of how you will always be in the present.
How about we all just assume that everyone on this planet has said something questionable in their past, and just keep the entire planet unemployed. Seems like a nice preventative measure to me.
Thoughts? I'm serious. Either you think people can change as they get older, or people are born a certain way and must be judged their entire life for every fault they'll ever do. Sort of like how certain sections of society will always blame another section of society for past sin such as slavery.
Are we all just guilty of original sin, and can never be forgiven by our peers? And we in turn can never forgive our peers for their sins as well?
No because people change, basing someone on something said like eight years ago, and then trying to compare that to where they are now is irresponsible and immature. We don't know their histories of what they became after. S o to judge them completely on that is baseless. People change short and simple.
Crimson Devil wrote: People preach redemption is possible, but they don't really believe it.
I don't know if that's totally true....
Redemption is understanding that everyone isn't perfect and that we all have flaws (we're sinners that is). And that learning from mistakes/sins is possible...
However, there are some "red lines" that many hold is truly unforgivable. Pedophilia is one of those... and James Gunn is in Hollywood where pedophilia is a thing.
Crimson Devil wrote: People preach redemption is possible, but they don't really believe it.
I don't know if that's totally true....
Redemption is understanding that everyone isn't perfect and that we all have flaws (we're sinners that is). And that learning from mistakes/sins is possible...
However, there are some "red lines" that many hold is truly unforgivable. Pedophilia is one of those... and James Gunn is in Hollywood where pedophilia is a thing.
I must have missed the part where James Gunn was a paedophile, rather than a guy who made a few tasteless jokes.
The problem is that people are completely obsessed with tearing others down, and will go to any length to glean enjoyment from that. Social Media to them is like pure ecstasy.
I must have missed the part where James Gunn was a paedophile, rather than a guy who made a few tasteless jokes.
I find the fact that many assume it and made automatically the logical passage appalling.
We don't know, I personally think it's just despicable humor. But everyone is sure and ready to be Judge, Jury and Executioner.
I must have missed the part where James Gunn was a paedophile, rather than a guy who made a few tasteless jokes.
I find the fact that many assume it and made automatically the logical passage appalling.
We don't know, I personally think it's just despicable humor. But everyone is sure and ready to be Judge, Jury and Executioner.
To the right (or the wrong) people, it doesn't in the slightest bit matter whether you are a paedophile, or just make paedophile jokes, or made some jokes 10 years ago, or are completely innocent.
Pizzagate happened because a constituency of Trump supporters were prepared to believe a paedophile ring was being run from the basement of a restaurant without any supporting evidence except the claim by right-wing conspiracy website that it was being done and the people involved were Democrats. Someone actually went down there and took a shot at the place.
That is the level of crazy things have got to.
In this atmosphere of witch-hunting and violence, you can almost see Disney sacking Gunn to prevent an outbreak of alt-right shooting at their film studio.
To be clear, I don't believe all right-wing people are nuts. It's a small but dangerous minority.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Of course, the hand-wringing of a few internet left-wing critics is hilarious. You know damned well that if Gunn was even slightly right of centre they'd be the ones waving the pitchforks.
The lesson to learn from these idiots?
"It's ok when we do it to them, but not ok when they do it to us!"
Funny that. For me the lesson learned is that right wing idiots are all against “PC culture” and all for “free speech” up until it can be used to attack someone left wing, and then those principles fly away very fast.
“Freedom of speech is when we have the right to say anything without consequences, but not anyone else”.
I don't really care about James Gunn being fired btw.
I will go ahead and speak for all the "right wingers" in the world. 99.9% of them think being fired for telling a joke 10 years ago is not only incredibly stupid. It is also Un-American as feth.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Of course, the hand-wringing of a few internet left-wing critics is hilarious. You know damned well that if Gunn was even slightly right of centre they'd be the ones waving the pitchforks.
The lesson to learn from these idiots?
"It's ok when we do it to them, but not ok when they do it to us!"
Funny that. For me the lesson learned is that right wing idiots are all against “PC culture” and all for “free speech” up until it can be used to attack someone left wing, and then those principles fly away very fast.
“Freedom of speech is when we have the right to say anything without consequences, but not anyone else”.
I don't really care about James Gunn being fired btw.
I will go ahead and speak for all the "right wingers" in the world. 99.9% of them think being fired for telling a joke 10 years ago is not only incredibly stupid. It is also Un-American as feth.
I think that is true for almost everyone regardless of politics, except the lunatic fringes. Unfortunately, the lunatic fringe is what gets airplay these days.
mate of mine put it pretty well so i'm just gonna copy paste
His jokes were gak and at the level of edgy 4chan users, but they were also 10 years ago. He also already addressed them saying he grew up and apologised yet again when this all went down. His firing was the absolute height of bs and the world of comedy, good or bad is in a very dangerous position now. I've seen comments even equating him to the likes of Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey... what fething planet are they on? By this logic we better shun and lock up Jimmy Carr, Jim Jefferies, Frankie Boyle and Ricky Gervais now for their words. Cancel their projects too. Nonsense. If you've seen Gunn's early work even up to 2010, you'll see his humour was always dark and somewhat edgy, albeit far better than his tweets... But that's not the point. Give him back this project.
Xenomancers wrote: I will go ahead and speak for all the "right wingers" in the world.
How can you do that? Are you incredibly well versed into the opinion of right-wing people all over the world? What are the opinions of right-wing Iranian people, for instance? Or right-wingers for Kerala? Unless you lead me to believe otherwise, I'm gonna assume you meant “I will speak for myself and the right-wingers I personally know”. Still, it's good to know.
Historically it's very American. I mean, the US is notorious for how easy it is to fire people there, and it's also one of the only democracies where it did happen on a very large scale before (see MacCartyism again). What the US is and what the US believe itself to be are often worlds apart!
Xenomancers wrote: I will go ahead and speak for all the "right wingers" in the world.
How can you do that?
Are you incredibly well versed into the opinion of right-wing people all over the world? What are the opinions of right-wing Iranian people, for instance? Or right-wingers for Kerala?
Unless you lead me to believe otherwise, I'm gonna assume you meant “I will speak for myself and the right-wingers I personally know”.
Still, it's good to know.
Historically it's very American.
I mean, the US is notorious for how easy it is to fire people there, and it's also one of the only democracies where it did happen on a very large scale before (see MacCartyism again).
What the US is and what the US believe itself to be are often worlds apart!
You made a generalization about right wingers that is totally off base. Being a human being I think we can all agree that humor is something all cultures are into. Making a crude joke in the appropriate place (your personal home - your personal media) is no reason to lose your job - unless you made a crude joke right to your bosses face in a meeting or something. Honestly - I think you'd find a whole lot more people on the left upset with the comments (right wingers are pretty big on free speech). If it wasn't for the fact that this guy is a well known anti trumper - it would likely be the other way around in this crazed society we are living in today. Personally I don't care what anyone says in a joke. Heck I can't even sing my favorite songs in front of my friends because they are written by Drake and every other word out of his mouth is a word I can't say. This is a screwed up country man. You got that right.
Xenomancers wrote: You made a generalization about right wingers that is totally off base.
What generalization? I was answering H.B.M.C.'s comment about left-wing idiots by another about right-wing idiots. But I guess his comment was fine?
Are you going to tell me that Gunn wasn't fired as the result of a campaign from some internet right-wingers?
Yeah, I was talking about those right-wingers. The one that constantly complains about PC culture because for them it merely means "left-wing ideas", constantly pretend to be for free speech but would gladly censor everyone else.
Xenomancers wrote: Honestly - I think you'd find a whole lot more people on the left upset with the comments (right wingers are pretty big on free speech).
Gee, sure, right-wingers are “pretty big on free speech”. They have been known for their attachment to free speech over the ages! Like, historically, they did MacCarthyism, supported blasphemy laws, supported obscenity laws, …
Right now it's not exactly left wingers trying to prevent sex education.
Xenomancers wrote: This is a screwed up country man. You got that right.
Well, my personal theory is people don't actually believe their religions either. It's more a cultural/tribal identity they can use as a weapon, rather than any actual belief in a greater power.
So what has this to do with Trump? This who sorry affair began because some vile, right wing creep has set out to dig up dirt on Gunn because Gunn publicly criticised Trump. It’s a hatchet job and it worked. It worked because the bosses at Disney are spineless.
No, it worked because Disney set themselves as moderating social media behavior, and drawing a line that certain forms of behavior on social media are completely unacceptable (see star wars fans). Suddenly one of their directors is outed as also having unacceptable social media behavior by *their standards.*
They can either sever the relationship or be hypocrites. According to the moral standards they set for others, this was the correct choice.
So what has this to do with Trump? This who sorry affair began because some vile, right wing creep has set out to dig up dirt on Gunn because Gunn publicly criticised Trump. It’s a hatchet job and it worked. It worked because the bosses at Disney are spineless.
No, it worked because Disney set themselves as moderating social media behavior, and drawing a line that certain forms of behavior on social media are completely unacceptable (see star wars fans). Suddenly one of their directors is outed as also having unacceptable social media behavior by *their standards.*
They can either sever the relationship or be hypocrites. According to the moral standards they set for others, this was the correct choice.
This is absolute nonsense.
You're conflating current, terrible behavior(with a lame attempt to say it's "just jokes") from a mass of individuals who CLEARLY have no interest in changing their behavior with someone who made jokes ten fething years ago and has actively shifted their behavior since then(with evidence of that shift to boot!).
They knew about that behavior from Gunn ten years ago when they hired him. If it had been the case of him being fired when they "applied the moral standards for others", you'd have a point. But it wasn't. It was a bunch of faux outrage and concern trolling.
So what has this to do with Trump? This who sorry affair began because some vile, right wing creep has set out to dig up dirt on Gunn because Gunn publicly criticised Trump. It’s a hatchet job and it worked. It worked because the bosses at Disney are spineless.
No, it worked because Disney set themselves as moderating social media behavior, and drawing a line that certain forms of behavior on social media are completely unacceptable (see star wars fans). Suddenly one of their directors is outed as also having unacceptable social media behavior by *their standards.*
They can either sever the relationship or be hypocrites. According to the moral standards they set for others, this was the correct choice.
Not really, Gunns past jokes were known to Disney. It was brought up, apologized for, and he worked towards making amends for it since he wished up. Since this was dug up again and suddenly became a fire storm with a lot of people because they didn't bother to dig deeper into it to find out all this came up before. Should people be surprised that Disney reacted the way they did now that people are being whipped up into a fury over it? Absolutely not. They saw a possible infection and cut it out rather than waiting to see if it could be treated. It might not be fair, but it is what it is. As for whether he should be forgiven or not, no matter what, that's up to you. I don't forgive someone's actions for being drunk as my dad was nearly killed by a drunk driver. I do respect an alcoholic who actively fights their addiction though.
It should be noted that a pedophile doesn't necessarily equal a sexual predator who exploits children. I actually remember reading an article about a guy who was a pedophile and the difficulties he had trying to actually get psychiatric treatment for it. The fact that he was able to come forward to his parents, several doctors, and the interviewer about it leads me to believe his claims that he'd never done anything to exploit children. It was stomach turning for me to imagine what that's gotta be like, but I actually felt sorry for him rather than angry. While I still feel that child molesters should be exempt from any protection against cruel and unusual punishments, I actually try to avoid saying pedophile now.
Firing him was stupid. Dredging up jokes from a decade ago is stupid. This entire affair is stupid, and has made everyone involved look worse as a result.
So what has this to do with Trump? This who sorry affair began because some vile, right wing creep has set out to dig up dirt on Gunn because Gunn publicly criticised Trump. It’s a hatchet job and it worked. It worked because the bosses at Disney are spineless.
No, it worked because Disney set themselves as moderating social media behavior, and drawing a line that certain forms of behavior on social media are completely unacceptable (see star wars fans). Suddenly one of their directors is outed as also having unacceptable social media behavior by *their standards.*
They can either sever the relationship or be hypocrites. According to the moral standards they set for others, this was the correct choice.
This is absolute nonsense.
You're conflating current, terrible behavior(with a lame attempt to say it's "just jokes") from a mass of individuals who CLEARLY have no interest in changing their behavior with someone who made jokes ten fething years ago and has actively shifted their behavior since then(with evidence of that shift to boot!).
I'm not conflating anything actually. I'm saying now that Disney has taken a public stance on social media behavior, they're stuck applying it to their own people as well. It isn't about Gunn, it isn't about the Star Wars fans. It's about the position Disney has taken as a corporation. Sacrificing one director to their agenda [likely just one movie early] probably isn't going to cost them much sleep. But it gives them moral authority (or at least the appearance of it), and reinforces their family image. Which even though we all know they've got a lot of entertainment for adults and crappy behavior in their past and present, image matters. They're frankly one of the biggest kids entertainment factories on the planet at this point. Cradle to grave entertainment really, but corporate image is the kids stuff. So this is very much in keeping on how they want to be perceived.
They knew about that behavior from Gunn ten years ago when they hired him.
Sure. But they hadn't publicly stated that all crappy behavior on social media is bad at the time. Now they have, and they have to deal with the consequences of that stance.
Is it a low blow that someone brought up 10 year old crap? Sure. But they have to deal with it just the same. Social media gets a lot more attention than it did 10 years ago, when it was basically just another toy for kids/young adults. Now it seriously shapes (and shakes) global politics.
@Skaorn- forgiveness isn't relevant to anything I said, nor is pedophila. It's about corporate image (and therefor money), and maybe a 'own team' sacrifice to get idiots on social media to calm the *@#*( down. Doubt that part will work, and it probably isn't even sincere, but those are the issues involved.
@HBMC- yeah, it does make the people involved look worse. But the only people who matter in this case are Gunn and Disney. The right wing jack-donkey who dragged it up doesn't care about his image. So as the major affected party, of course Disney is going to try to do damage control to try to mitigate things.
Random thought: if James Gunn knew that working for Disney would potentially open him up to higher scrutiny, AND he had admitted to and apologized for the previous tweets and the behaviors attached to them, why didn't he delete those things back when he started filming GOTG? It'd seem that if something you posted was not indicative of your mindset/moral compass/whatever, you would get rid of those posts. Letting them stand says more in the court of public opinion than any other statement you could make.
Just Tony wrote: Random thought: if James Gunn knew that working for Disney would potentially open him up to higher scrutiny, AND he had admitted to and apologized for the previous tweets and the behaviors attached to them, why didn't he delete those things back when he started filming GOTG? It'd seem that if something you posted was not indicative of your mindset/moral compass/whatever, you would get rid of those posts. Letting them stand says more in the court of public opinion than any other statement you could make.
But, alternatively, if you've posted something and then apologised for it, you should be able to reasonably rest in the knowledge that what you've said and since rescinded should not be held against you.
Especially years after the fact.
Working for Disney wasn't the problem. The problem is that someone wanted to silence his political voice and influence, so took some quotes out of context (the context being that they were years old and had been apologised for) and threatened his image.
Deleting something is fine, but sometimes, things can be too far back to delete, and an apology to everyone (you'd think) would be enough to say "I don't believe in this any more". Unfortunately, to some people, that's not the case.
Now that Disney owns... Everything... What will happen to Alien? Deadpool? Simpson's?! Disney, for the most part, avoids violence, gore, foul language and religion. How can they fire someone for making bad jokes ages ago and then make Deadpool 3?
Just Tony wrote: Random thought: if James Gunn knew that working for Disney would potentially open him up to higher scrutiny, AND he had admitted to and apologized for the previous tweets and the behaviors attached to them, why didn't he delete those things back when he started filming GOTG? It'd seem that if something you posted was not indicative of your mindset/moral compass/whatever, you would get rid of those posts. Letting them stand says more in the court of public opinion than any other statement you could make.
Deleting the tweets wouldn't have stopped this. There's websites that archive tweets.
More than that, it's rather telling that Rian Johnson(director of "The Last Jedi") is now catching flak because he's deleted 21k tweets that he considered things that "could be used or taken out of context".
Just Tony wrote: Random thought: if James Gunn knew that working for Disney would potentially open him up to higher scrutiny, AND he had admitted to and apologized for the previous tweets and the behaviors attached to them, why didn't he delete those things back when he started filming GOTG? It'd seem that if something you posted was not indicative of your mindset/moral compass/whatever, you would get rid of those posts. Letting them stand says more in the court of public opinion than any other statement you could make.
He deleted them six years ago, but they're still around on some tweet archives.
Just Tony wrote: Random thought: if James Gunn knew that working for Disney would potentially open him up to higher scrutiny, AND he had admitted to and apologized for the previous tweets and the behaviors attached to them, why didn't he delete those things back when he started filming GOTG? It'd seem that if something you posted was not indicative of your mindset/moral compass/whatever, you would get rid of those posts. Letting them stand says more in the court of public opinion than any other statement you could make.
Perhaps because he had owned up to and apologized for the tweets and Disney were OK with that position.
DeffDred wrote: Now that Disney owns... Everything... What will happen to Alien? Deadpool? Simpson's?! Disney, for the most part, avoids violence, gore, foul language and religion. How can they fire someone for making bad jokes ages ago and then make Deadpool 3?
Well, Disney used to publish ICP. The guys who raps a song where the narrator gloats about having sex with the corpse of their girlfriend every night, with some lovely details like the fact the girlfriend died in 1985 (so 10 years before the song was released), full of gory details.
Oh, I forgot some really meaningful detail: ICP may have been with Disney at the time, but they didn't give up their own IP. They were able to say “Screw Disney, we're going our own way.”. Unlike all the other stuff you quoted, where the IP belongs to the company instead of the author. I hate the fact that some company can own characters like this and think it should be against the law!
Just Tony wrote: Random thought: if James Gunn knew that working for Disney would potentially open him up to higher scrutiny, AND he had admitted to and apologized for the previous tweets and the behaviors attached to them, why didn't he delete those things back when he started filming GOTG? It'd seem that if something you posted was not indicative of your mindset/moral compass/whatever, you would get rid of those posts. Letting them stand says more in the court of public opinion than any other statement you could make.
Perhaps because he had owned up to and apologized for the tweets and Disney were OK with that position.
Then I'm perplexed as to why Disney would suddenly NOT be okay with that position. If they were genuinely okay with that sort of dirty laundry hanging out on the back porch somewhere, pointing it out shouldn't have made a difference.
Then I'm perplexed as to why Disney would suddenly NOT be okay with that position. If they were genuinely okay with that sort of dirty laundry hanging out on the back porch somewhere, pointing it out shouldn't have made a difference.
Considering that Disney has been ok with employing actual convicted pedos such as Brian Peck in the past...
Just Tony wrote: Random thought: if James Gunn knew that working for Disney would potentially open him up to higher scrutiny, AND he had admitted to and apologized for the previous tweets and the behaviors attached to them, why didn't he delete those things back when he started filming GOTG? It'd seem that if something you posted was not indicative of your mindset/moral compass/whatever, you would get rid of those posts. Letting them stand says more in the court of public opinion than any other statement you could make.
Perhaps because he had owned up to and apologized for the tweets and Disney were OK with that position.
Then I'm perplexed as to why Disney would suddenly NOT be okay with that position. If they were genuinely okay with that sort of dirty laundry hanging out on the back porch somewhere, pointing it out shouldn't have made a difference.
One has to assume that Disney were afraid of the Trumpist hate campaign. There wasn't any other public furore around the matter.
I didn't realize Trump's base dictated policy at Disney. Seems kind of knee jerk to me, unless there was more "dirt" to dig up. I mean, lets face it: he was a Troma director, the jokes on his social media are CHILD'S PLAY compared to what THAT studio produces.
Trump's base are trying to dictate lots of areas of policy around the government, justice system, international relations, family life and companies and business.
H.B.M.C. wrote: All of which continues to have 0% to do with any of this KK.
Seriously, drop it. This isn't even remotely about Trump. Stop trying to make everything about Trump.
Except that it's VERY clear that the reason that Cernovich called out Gunn's tweets was because Gunn is a vocal anti-Trump figure within Disney. Cernovich, on the other hand, is very much pro-Trump, and it doesn't take much to realise why he tried (and succeeded) to undermine Gunn's position.
I'm all for making things less about Trump, but this isn't one of those times. Whether Trump himself had a hand in this or not (I find it incredibly hard to believe that he would have), it still relates to him.
Yeah, this isnt about Trump, but is definitely about a Trump Supporter, and sabotaging Gunn for a reason counter to that viewpoint, which this particular Cult of Personality has been gaining increasing power to perform.
And that Social Media is a cancer easily utilized by the wrong people.
Since I think we've covered this topic fully I'm going to lock this thread.
Also, regarding Trump / politics in general, where possible please stick to discussing these topics in the dedicated US Politics thread in OT, rather than in the Geek Media forum. We specifically set up this forum to keep it separate from all that, so bringing it in here kind of defeats the purpose!
If there are any developments regarding Gunn / GotG / etc please PM me to reopen.
.
