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.

What a load of complete nonsense.

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.

 Hollow wrote:
The holocaust, pedophiles, rape... preferably all in one great joke together.

Is it bad I can immediately name a Nazi war criminal who did all those things?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oskar_Dirlewanger

Just make up a joke involving him and you hit all those high points.

His name is Dirlewanger. The jokes kinda write themselves.

 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.

 Hollow wrote:

Are disney going to fire themselves for all the racist/ anti-semitic/ misogynistic stuff they have done in the past.

This is a really valid point. The deleted scenes from the centaurs part (Pastoral Symphony) in Fantasia come to mind.

And Michael Rooker is out...in a way.

http://www.syfy.com/syfywire/guardians-star-michael-rooker-says-hes-tired-and-upset-quits-twitter-days-after-gunns

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.

 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.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 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.

 Ouze wrote:

 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.

You have a link?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
You have a link?

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.

I'd still like to see proof of your claim.

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.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I'd still like to see proof of your claim.

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.

 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 look them up. They are pretty bad., Like punch him in the face bad.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
And Michael Rooker is out...in a way.

http://www.syfy.com/syfywire/guardians-star-michael-rooker-says-hes-tired-and-upset-quits-twitter-days-after-gunns

"Twitter sucks and I want nothing to do with it."

Yes, yes it does.

 cuda1179 wrote:
It's all irrelevant anyway.

I'd still like to see it.

 Ouze wrote:


"Twitter sucks and I want nothing to do with it."

Yes, yes it does.

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.

 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.

I linked a collection of screenshots, for the sake of discussion, behind a spoiler tag.
Mods took it down, I think because of the language Gunn used.

It should be on google images if you search for James Gunn 2018 tweets. Maybe.

 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.

It's the "own the libs" or "own the cons" crowd.

Seriously, I think anonymity need to be en vogue again in order to neuter the mob mentality a bit.

 whembly wrote:
It's the "own the libs" or "own the cons" crowd.

Seriously, I think anonymity need to be en vogue again in order to neuter the mob mentality a bit.

Or you know nuke twitter remove it entirely.

I only use it to follow dog rates and ghetto hikes now.

If we have learned anything from the past two years. Twitter is bad don't do anything stupid on it.

 Asherian Command wrote:

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.

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.

 Ouze wrote:
"Twitter sucks and I want nothing to do with it."

Yes, yes it does.

Hopefully the pebble that starts an avalanche.

 Asherian Command wrote:
If we have learned anything from the past two years. Twitter is bad don't use it.

FIFY.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
"Twitter sucks and I want nothing to do with it."

Yes, yes it does.

Hopefully the pebble that starts an avalanche.

 Asherian Command wrote:
If we have learned anything from the past two years. Twitter is bad don't use it.

FIFY.

You made it better honestly.

So I'm curious....

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?

 BuFFo wrote:
So I'm curious....

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.

People preach redemption is possible, but they don't really believe it.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
People preach redemption is possible, but they don't really believe it.

Funnily enough that runs counter to most religions and philisophy : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redemption_(theology)

Not even surprised honestly.

As it has to be said, avoid saying stupid things in general or keep your tongue in check and you won't have to deal with most of these issues.

 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.