"But I liked this guy who did bad stuff, so this seems unfair, even though I laughed at this happening to Roseanne." That was my gut reaction. I read some of the stuff that he wrote and it's...
"But I liked this guy who did bad stuff, so this seems unfair, even though I laughed at this happening to Roseanne."
That was my gut reaction. I read some of the stuff that he wrote and it's pretty indefensible. I support the the corporate self-protectionism that Disney shows by firing someone whose work I enjoy, despite the fact that he criticizes politicians that I loathe and makes art that I love.
I'm not sure if I would say that the Gunn and Roseanne cases are the same. They both said some horrible things, yeah, but there was a completely different intent. Gunn's tweets (that I have read...
I'm not sure if I would say that the Gunn and Roseanne cases are the same. They both said some horrible things, yeah, but there was a completely different intent. Gunn's tweets (that I have read from the article) are shocking, but he uses that shock to shame terrible behavours. Barr's tweet, on the other hand, was pretty mean-spirited and grounded in racism.
The fact that Gunn's tweets were old and represented a less mature version of himself is another key difference. Barr being on Roseanne was something like a parole. Anyone who had actually seen Roseanne Barr in the last few years knew that she was the type of person to say these kinds of things, and her children had previously barred her from Twitter because of it. They knew that she would wreck her career with her tweets.
Where do we draw the line for how long you can be punished for an internet post? Should democrats shun the people who read Ayn Rand when they were teenagers? Do we judge people less if they were drunk when they made the post?
To be clear, I don't think they're "the same", but they are somewhat similar. I don't really have a good answer for the statute of limitations on being accountable for stupid shit one has said....
To be clear, I don't think they're "the same", but they are somewhat similar.
I don't really have a good answer for the statute of limitations on being accountable for stupid shit one has said. People still take me to task for things that I've said online years ago, and I'm nobody, so it does not seem particularly unfair to me that someone rich and famous would be held to a similar standard.
That said, it does sicken me that our society is so polarized that people think that it's acceptable to go after someone just for their political beliefs. But I felt it was fair when Roseanne got fired, and it was her beliefs that caused that to happen, and I find it acceptable because I found her beliefs reprehensible.
I guess all I'm saying is it's hard to look past our own biases and say that someone we like deserves something that happens to them, but I think that it's possible in this case.
I wholesale reject the idea that we as a society should sacrifice someone because people are unwilling to examine the details. It may happen in practice, but it goes against even the most basic...
I wholesale reject the idea that we as a society should sacrifice someone because people are unwilling to examine the details. It may happen in practice, but it goes against even the most basic principles.
I wonder why any celebrity uses Twitter at all, other than a PR-vetted account for announcing tour dates and the like. Someone once called it a "140 character resignation letter service".
I wonder why any celebrity uses Twitter at all, other than a PR-vetted account for announcing tour dates and the like. Someone once called it a "140 character resignation letter service".
While I fully agree that it sucks that "pizzagaters" are pushing this through, some of the things that he said are indefensible, and if we want "the other side" to be accountable for the things...
While I fully agree that it sucks that "pizzagaters" are pushing this through, some of the things that he said are indefensible, and if we want "the other side" to be accountable for the things that they say and do, then "our side" also has to be accountable for the things that they say and do.
People have to understand that their social media posts aren't free speech zones, and there are consequences to saying awful things.
What you said is all true, but Gunn did have a "come to jesus" moment about his past behaviour and publicly aplogized for it, even before his job was on the line. So what does this accomplish?...
What you said is all true, but Gunn did have a "come to jesus" moment about his past behaviour and publicly aplogized for it, even before his job was on the line.
So what does this accomplish? It's not going to teach him a lesson, he already learned it. It's probably not going to serve as a lesson for others, unless the intended lesson is "scrub the internet of your past acts and never bring it up again", which is not a great take. It's not going to satisfy the people who would usually be offended by this, because they really weren't out for his skin. And it's not actually a great look for Disney because it essentially shows they will accept everyone's word at face value and never consider broader context.
Who comes out of this a winner other then the people who wanted to see Gunn knocked down a peg for personal vendetta reasons?
Nobody comes out of this a winner. I've followed him and I know he was more outlandish in his earlier years, but I think it's clear that if you're someone who makes pedophilia jokes publicly then...
Nobody comes out of this a winner.
I've followed him and I know he was more outlandish in his earlier years, but I think it's clear that if you're someone who makes pedophilia jokes publicly then you're probably going to have a hard time working for Disney.
I also recognize the differences between Roseanne and Gunn here, but I think that we can't just give a guy a pass because we like him.
He said these things. They were moderately awful. He recognizes that. He probably recognizes why he got fired.
He's going to work again, and I'll continue to watch his movies.
Fair enough, but I still think Disney is sending a troubling underlying message with this: that ultimately it really does come down to whether or not you get caught, rather then whether or not you...
Fair enough, but I still think Disney is sending a troubling underlying message with this: that ultimately it really does come down to whether or not you get caught, rather then whether or not you understand and try to right your wrongs.
I don't think Disney is sending that message - I think that's just a general law in our society. Everything that's bad really comes down to "how much can i get away with" which is a part of the...
I don't think Disney is sending that message - I think that's just a general law in our society. Everything that's bad really comes down to "how much can i get away with" which is a part of the moral deterioration that societies have.
At some point, there's a moral snap and people start to take others to task about more things - I think that's happening now. We've gotten away with a lot for a long time, and now people are getting away with much less.
The problem with "it's just a joke" is that there's so much it cannot excuse, and it's hard to tell where that line is. I tend to err on the side of not publishing things that are reprehensible;...
The problem with "it's just a joke" is that there's so much it cannot excuse, and it's hard to tell where that line is.
I tend to err on the side of not publishing things that are reprehensible; Gunn elected not to be as cautious.
We should be very careful about twitter, facebook, reddit, even tildes. The words that we publish can certainly be used against us, so we strive to say what we mean and mean what we say so that when someone throws our words back at us, we can stand by them.
I just tweeted this.. seemed relevant to post here: :Today’s news of @JamesGunn’s firing is quite shocking on a number of levels. I sense unpacking this thing will involve 80,000+ word books....
I just tweeted this.. seemed relevant to post here:
:Today’s news of @JamesGunn’s firing is quite shocking on a number of levels. I sense unpacking this thing will involve 80,000+ word books. Seriously, it goes from #metoo to time limits on policing thoughts, all the way to the US’ political divide with Gunn at the center of it.
:That being said, expect them to rehire him in some capacity. GOTG made $1.6 billion dollars for $DIS
"But I liked this guy who did bad stuff, so this seems unfair, even though I laughed at this happening to Roseanne."
That was my gut reaction. I read some of the stuff that he wrote and it's pretty indefensible. I support the the corporate self-protectionism that Disney shows by firing someone whose work I enjoy, despite the fact that he criticizes politicians that I loathe and makes art that I love.
It's hard though.
I'm not sure if I would say that the Gunn and Roseanne cases are the same. They both said some horrible things, yeah, but there was a completely different intent. Gunn's tweets (that I have read from the article) are shocking, but he uses that shock to shame terrible behavours. Barr's tweet, on the other hand, was pretty mean-spirited and grounded in racism.
The fact that Gunn's tweets were old and represented a less mature version of himself is another key difference. Barr being on Roseanne was something like a parole. Anyone who had actually seen Roseanne Barr in the last few years knew that she was the type of person to say these kinds of things, and her children had previously barred her from Twitter because of it. They knew that she would wreck her career with her tweets.
Where do we draw the line for how long you can be punished for an internet post? Should democrats shun the people who read Ayn Rand when they were teenagers? Do we judge people less if they were drunk when they made the post?
To be clear, I don't think they're "the same", but they are somewhat similar.
I don't really have a good answer for the statute of limitations on being accountable for stupid shit one has said. People still take me to task for things that I've said online years ago, and I'm nobody, so it does not seem particularly unfair to me that someone rich and famous would be held to a similar standard.
That said, it does sicken me that our society is so polarized that people think that it's acceptable to go after someone just for their political beliefs. But I felt it was fair when Roseanne got fired, and it was her beliefs that caused that to happen, and I find it acceptable because I found her beliefs reprehensible.
I guess all I'm saying is it's hard to look past our own biases and say that someone we like deserves something that happens to them, but I think that it's possible in this case.
True but irrelevant. The current climate assumes the worst possible interpretation for anything said.
I wholesale reject the idea that we as a society should sacrifice someone because people are unwilling to examine the details. It may happen in practice, but it goes against even the most basic principles.
That was exactly my reaction. I’m glad that Gunn himself has the self-awareness to walk away.
I wonder why any celebrity uses Twitter at all, other than a PR-vetted account for announcing tour dates and the like. Someone once called it a "140 character resignation letter service".
The fact that this is clearly being pushed by Pizzagaters as retaliation bothers me, and even more so that Disney didn't take that into account.
While I fully agree that it sucks that "pizzagaters" are pushing this through, some of the things that he said are indefensible, and if we want "the other side" to be accountable for the things that they say and do, then "our side" also has to be accountable for the things that they say and do.
People have to understand that their social media posts aren't free speech zones, and there are consequences to saying awful things.
What you said is all true, but Gunn did have a "come to jesus" moment about his past behaviour and publicly aplogized for it, even before his job was on the line.
So what does this accomplish? It's not going to teach him a lesson, he already learned it. It's probably not going to serve as a lesson for others, unless the intended lesson is "scrub the internet of your past acts and never bring it up again", which is not a great take. It's not going to satisfy the people who would usually be offended by this, because they really weren't out for his skin. And it's not actually a great look for Disney because it essentially shows they will accept everyone's word at face value and never consider broader context.
Who comes out of this a winner other then the people who wanted to see Gunn knocked down a peg for personal vendetta reasons?
Nobody comes out of this a winner.
I've followed him and I know he was more outlandish in his earlier years, but I think it's clear that if you're someone who makes pedophilia jokes publicly then you're probably going to have a hard time working for Disney.
I also recognize the differences between Roseanne and Gunn here, but I think that we can't just give a guy a pass because we like him.
He said these things. They were moderately awful. He recognizes that. He probably recognizes why he got fired.
He's going to work again, and I'll continue to watch his movies.
Fair enough, but I still think Disney is sending a troubling underlying message with this: that ultimately it really does come down to whether or not you get caught, rather then whether or not you understand and try to right your wrongs.
I don't think Disney is sending that message - I think that's just a general law in our society. Everything that's bad really comes down to "how much can i get away with" which is a part of the moral deterioration that societies have.
At some point, there's a moral snap and people start to take others to task about more things - I think that's happening now. We've gotten away with a lot for a long time, and now people are getting away with much less.
It's like the technological inquisition.
I guess the, “it’s just a joke,” grace period is now over.
The problem with "it's just a joke" is that there's so much it cannot excuse, and it's hard to tell where that line is.
I tend to err on the side of not publishing things that are reprehensible; Gunn elected not to be as cautious.
We should be very careful about twitter, facebook, reddit, even tildes. The words that we publish can certainly be used against us, so we strive to say what we mean and mean what we say so that when someone throws our words back at us, we can stand by them.
I just tweeted this.. seemed relevant to post here:
:Today’s news of @JamesGunn’s firing is quite shocking on a number of levels. I sense unpacking this thing will involve 80,000+ word books. Seriously, it goes from #metoo to time limits on policing thoughts, all the way to the US’ political divide with Gunn at the center of it.
:That being said, expect them to rehire him in some capacity. GOTG made $1.6 billion dollars for $DIS
Edit: I'm stupid and didn't say billion.
yea.. haha.. the word "billion" would have helped. Blame on the Macbook Pro keyboard.
I feel like most of the current world problems are really deep down the fault of this keyboard. It fills me with such rage.
That’s a side of guac at Chipotle!