Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 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.

edit: ninja'ed by a lot.

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!"

And what has any of this got to do with Trump?

 Galas wrote:
Humour should not have limits.

Yes it should. Let me illustrate, with this scene from a movie.

 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?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 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.

Not really.

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.

Edit: Link to the article: https://quillette.com/2018/07/14/i-was-the-mob-until-the-mob-came-for-me/

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.

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.

Edit: Link to the article: https://quillette.com/2018/07/14/i-was-the-mob-until-the-mob-came-for-me/

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.

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.

For "acose" I wanted to say harassment, sorry

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 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

I wouldn't have guessed .

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

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.

nou wrote:

I wasn't defending either Disney or the mob,

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?

What did Amy Schumer do?

 cuda1179 wrote:

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...

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

nou wrote:

I wasn't defending either Disney or the mob,

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.

 AdeptSister wrote:
cuda1179 said that. I don't know why he put Schumer with Polanski...

Because he reads gakky blogs that leave him ill-informed.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Trumpists put together a "best of" reel and whined about it to Disney because Gunn has been critical of Trump.

That still doesn't make it about Trump.

Ditch the TDS Kilkrazy. It's a bad look.

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!).

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 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?

 Ouze wrote:

 AdeptSister wrote:
cuda1179 said that. I don't know why he put Schumer with Polanski...

Because he reads gakky blogs that leave him ill-informed.

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.