Crazy world. People were very supportive of him coming back, but the NY Times editor is out there publishing racist messages / ideas and when people get upset they just dig in and defend the editor.
Crazy world. People were very supportive of him coming back, but the NY Times editor is out there publishing racist messages / ideas and when people get upset they just dig in and defend the editor.
While I agree that one seems unfair the only defense being that Disney is a very kid oriented brand while NYT probably doesn't have many children readers. However I bet the NYT does have white...
While I agree that one seems unfair the only defense being that Disney is a very kid oriented brand while NYT probably doesn't have many children readers.
However I bet the NYT does have white readers, which seems strange they would ignore in an equal world. However two different companies can make two different decisions.
Just to be ultra clear, I don't like either decision really.
I absolutely do not condone the types of "jokes" that James Gunn made, but I would be a hypocrite if I said I agreed with his firing or the social media mob that made it happen. This is what...
I absolutely do not condone the types of "jokes" that James Gunn made, but I would be a hypocrite if I said I agreed with his firing or the social media mob that made it happen. This is what happens when social media becomes judge, jury and executioner with zero tolerance towards those who say or do inappropriate things. It's bound to backfire at some point. This is why there should be no tolerance for the mob, virtual or physical, and regardless of it being used for something we agree with.
You could make a case for any action that furthers your cause by using that logic. I'm sure the right-wing agitators said the same thing, "We're only doing this because of the left-wing agitators!"
You could make a case for any action that furthers your cause by using that logic. I'm sure the right-wing agitators said the same thing, "We're only doing this because of the left-wing agitators!"
My point was that they see the left wing agitators as doing the same thing that they do and they use it to rationalize what they are doing, whether or not that is true is up for debate.
My point was that they see the left wing agitators as doing the same thing that they do and they use it to rationalize what they are doing, whether or not that is true is up for debate.
That's why it's not a good counterargument for the intent. The left-wing agitators they're trying to force a double-standard with are going after people who are currently making statements, like...
That's why it's not a good counterargument for the intent. The left-wing agitators they're trying to force a double-standard with are going after people who are currently making statements, like Rosanne Barr. The right-wing agitators here instead dug up things from not only the distant past, but things that were already apologized for, and tried to make it into an even keel situation when it quite clearly is not.
Just because they can use that logic doesn't mean they are using it.
There are plenty of examples of both left and right wing mobs going after people for what they said in the past and present, I don't think the timing of the comments makes the mob any more...
There are plenty of examples of both left and right wing mobs going after people for what they said in the past and present, I don't think the timing of the comments makes the mob any more virtuous. In the end a mob is a bad thing, and a mob is a mob regardless of the intentions of who started it.
True, however this specific situation is definitely right-wing mob injustice. Their batting the ball back to the other side is just bad faith, since they're using it to justify their actions—and...
True, however this specific situation is definitely right-wing mob injustice. Their batting the ball back to the other side is just bad faith, since they're using it to justify their actions—and I've definitely heard that side argue "two wrongs don't make a right!" before, while continuing to engage in making wrongs.
Between "but the left did it!" and "because they're a bad person based on things from years ago", I can't help but feel the former is a degree worse than the latter as a rationale (though they're both bad reasons).
In summation, I think where the left-sided agitators are more inclined to judge too harshly but do not do it to "own the right", but the right-sided agitators are more insidious and vindictive about it and always seem to aim for "own the libs".
I get what you are saying, I just don't think its relevant to my point because the result is the same; a mob of angry people used a social media platform to get someone fired. I think no matter...
I get what you are saying, I just don't think its relevant to my point because the result is the same; a mob of angry people used a social media platform to get someone fired. I think no matter the reason for the mob, it's a questionable tactic and has a chilling effect on internet speech. There's no hard rules when it comes to what will cause a virtual mob or not.
I didn't think they were funny but I think people should be allowed to say them. Also however if you're employed by a kid friendly company you should expect to risk your job. My biggest beef is...
I absolutely do not condone the types of "jokes"
I didn't think they were funny but I think people should be allowed to say them. Also however if you're employed by a kid friendly company you should expect to risk your job. My biggest beef is that Disney hired him AFTER the jokes were made and only fired him once the court of public opinion brought them up.
I wonder how many people haven't made similarly ill-advised jokes at some point in their past. Gunn's biggest crime was having them publicly documented. What really gets me is that many of the...
I wonder how many people haven't made similarly ill-advised jokes at some point in their past. Gunn's biggest crime was having them publicly documented.
What really gets me is that many of the same people will defend themselves with "it's just a joke, you can't take it seriously or judge someone by a joke!". And yet here they were, getting someone fired and making judgements against them for jokes.
I mean...I haven't, and I don't know any people I'm friendly with or towards that have posted similarly poor jokes on social media. It's not a normal thing, and we shouldn't try to normalize it....
I mean...I haven't, and I don't know any people I'm friendly with or towards that have posted similarly poor jokes on social media. It's not a normal thing, and we shouldn't try to normalize it. It was definitely a mistake for him to publish his statements, and that's an extra step that I do think makes this different from sharing similar jokes with your friends. He should have known better.
I get the beef with Disney firing him. I don't agree with Disney firing him for statements he made and apologized for 8-10 years ago. I'm with you on that.
I meant that people may have made those jokes at all, in general. I'm sure everyone has strayed into off-colour and vulgar jokes at some point in their life, even if by accident. I feel like every...
I meant that people may have made those jokes at all, in general. I'm sure everyone has strayed into off-colour and vulgar jokes at some point in their life, even if by accident. I feel like every teenage boy goes through an edgy phase at some point and then regrets the views they held or things they've said.
Sure, I agree with you there. I don't think this is one of those teenage-boy-regret cases, though. It wasn't one or two stray jokes told in private or in text, it was a string of poorly formed...
Sure, I agree with you there. I don't think this is one of those teenage-boy-regret cases, though. It wasn't one or two stray jokes told in private or in text, it was a string of poorly formed jokes published on twitter. And James Gunn wasn't a teenager when he wrote them(He's 52 now so he was in his 40's when he wrote those) . He wasn't even figuratively young to the movie scene, so he can't really claim ignorance of how social media works. He thought some messed up stuff, went the extra mile to post them, and then later apologized for it. I understand that, and I'm all for forgiveness. But we shouldn't downplay what he did in order to forgive him.
To be clear, what exactly are we keeping in mind that he did? As far as I understand, he did something really stupid in jest. I feel like that's really not a big deal overall. I don't think movie...
To be clear, what exactly are we keeping in mind that he did? As far as I understand, he did something really stupid in jest. I feel like that's really not a big deal overall.
He wasn't even figuratively young to the movie scene, so he can't really claim ignorance of how social media works.
I don't think movie industry experience is the same as social media experience. I doubt anyone could have seen what social media would be like in 2018 back in 2008. It was a different era too, where such jokes were more acceptable as well.
The only reason I think Disney's reaction is wrong is because this happened long ago enough that I can give the guy the benefit of doubt and believe him when he says he has changed as a person. If...
The only reason I think Disney's reaction is wrong is because this happened long ago enough that I can give the guy the benefit of doubt and believe him when he says he has changed as a person. If this happened a couple months or even a couple years ago, I would be more understanding of Disney's decision. I do think what he said is a big deal overall, and if that's where we differ in opinion then I think that may be the end of any productive conversation --if only because our priorities are on different points of the situation.
social media's basic premise -- being a public place where what you said is heard by so many-- hasn't changed. That's what gets me. He said this in public and thought that was ok. Again, he wasn't a teenager. He was in his 40's. He's a grown man. He should have known better.
Have you seen the tweets? I have never heard anyone make jokes like that and I don't think I would want to work with someone who did. I get that it was a long time ago, but he was a successful...
Have you seen the tweets? I have never heard anyone make jokes like that and I don't think I would want to work with someone who did. I get that it was a long time ago, but he was a successful director in his mid-40s, not a confused teenager. I just don't think it's that unreasonable to fire a public figure for saying fucked up stuff, and I don't think this is going to open the door to many others being fired for old tweets, because seriously, nobody says stuff like that.
I do think they're jokes that super edge lord teenagers would be making more for a rise than a laugh. As Ochre said, he was a grown man who should have known better. But, hey, it was still ten...
I do think they're jokes that super edge lord teenagers would be making more for a rise than a laugh. As Ochre said, he was a grown man who should have known better.
But, hey, it was still ten years ago and he did apologize for it. I feel like that should count for a lot.
I think it's also important to mention that this is an especially ridiculous stance for them because Disney's own empire was largely built on public-domain stories. Yes, they have some original...
I think it's also important to mention that this is an especially ridiculous stance for them because Disney's own empire was largely built on public-domain stories. Yes, they have some original properties and characters, but a huge part of their most beloved ones are based on public-domain stories like The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Jungle Book, and so many others: https://medium.com/@derekkhanna/disney-works-based-on-public-domain-eb49ac34c3da
Thats a huge one for me, the vast majority of their more famous works are based on stories that are/were in the public domain. It's asinine the way the have been able to manipulate the situation...
Thats a huge one for me, the vast majority of their more famous works are based on stories that are/were in the public domain. It's asinine the way the have been able to manipulate the situation to their benefit.
Unfortunately, I have a 4 year old son that is a massive pixar fan so avoiding their IP is very hard for me.
Yeah I can agree with that, but personally it's not enough for me to boycott their entire company. Perhaps if they hadn't taken over Star Wars I'd be more on board with it, but that franchise is a...
Yeah I can agree with that, but personally it's not enough for me to boycott their entire company. Perhaps if they hadn't taken over Star Wars I'd be more on board with it, but that franchise is a little too near and dear to me to take a firm stance on copyright law. But I appreciate you explaining your side on it.
This isn't trolling I'm genuinely curious why someone would have taken a moral objection to Disney before this. edit: I wasn't trolling the other post either I just don't feel like explaining it...
This isn't trolling I'm genuinely curious why someone would have taken a moral objection to Disney before this.
edit:
I wasn't trolling the other post either I just don't feel like explaining it the 15th time in the same thread.
Is there anything specifically huge I'm missing here besides "old people being racist", "business getting caught bending laws to pay less money", and "One person making bigoted comment that...
Is there anything specifically huge I'm missing here besides "old people being racist", "business getting caught bending laws to pay less money", and "One person making bigoted comment that happens to work for company"?
I'm genuinely wondering what makes Disney uniquely terrible in the entertainment world or if you're just so hardcore that you boycott all entertainment companies.
They were Troma style offensive jokes because he was working at Troma around the time. What's interesting is that these tweets came out years ago & Gunn responded to them. h/t Jeff Burk It's also...
They were Troma style offensive jokes because he was working at Troma around the time. What's interesting is that these tweets came out years ago & Gunn responded to them.
h/t Jeff Burk
It's also worth noting, despite its taboo, Troma talked about LGBT & other issues decades before any one else was willing. Even if Troma is not someone's taste / it's a form of creativity that highlights farcical via parody.
"Gunn’s firing proves that businesses still haven’t figured out how to tell when they’re facing a genuine controversy — and when they’re just getting played by right-wing activists."
I mean, the entire foundation of their shtick is based in propaganda. Twisting, contorting facts and meaning. Of which Manufactured outrage is a big part.
They want to blur the lines, conflate confuse and then destroy basic ethics and standards of humanity, until people become so sick of overly pc shit that they just accept horrific hateful rhetoric and behavior without pause.
There are contextual differences... Not even nuanced. It's daunting to watch ppl lose the capacity for critical thinking, and become incapable of recognizing when they are being played /manipulated.
Does this latest Cernovich bs campaign pass the taste /smell test of pseudo bs? No.
I am generally not a big fan of the Daily Beast. However, this article imo is the most thorough, detailed look at intent.
How the alt-right wields and weaponises accusations of paedophilia
“It’s is a powerful weapon to use against one’s political enemies because,the accusation alone can be enough to permanently ruin someone’s reputation"
Crazy world. People were very supportive of him coming back, but the NY Times editor is out there publishing racist messages / ideas and when people get upset they just dig in and defend the editor.
While I agree that one seems unfair the only defense being that Disney is a very kid oriented brand while NYT probably doesn't have many children readers.
However I bet the NYT does have white readers, which seems strange they would ignore in an equal world. However two different companies can make two different decisions.
Just to be ultra clear, I don't like either decision really.
I absolutely do not condone the types of "jokes" that James Gunn made, but I would be a hypocrite if I said I agreed with his firing or the social media mob that made it happen. This is what happens when social media becomes judge, jury and executioner with zero tolerance towards those who say or do inappropriate things. It's bound to backfire at some point. This is why there should be no tolerance for the mob, virtual or physical, and regardless of it being used for something we agree with.
You could make a case for any action that furthers your cause by using that logic. I'm sure the right-wing agitators said the same thing, "We're only doing this because of the left-wing agitators!"
That was actually the reason, though. It wasn't just some hypothetical, that was the rationale.
My point was that they see the left wing agitators as doing the same thing that they do and they use it to rationalize what they are doing, whether or not that is true is up for debate.
That's why it's not a good counterargument for the intent. The left-wing agitators they're trying to force a double-standard with are going after people who are currently making statements, like Rosanne Barr. The right-wing agitators here instead dug up things from not only the distant past, but things that were already apologized for, and tried to make it into an even keel situation when it quite clearly is not.
Just because they can use that logic doesn't mean they are using it.
There are plenty of examples of both left and right wing mobs going after people for what they said in the past and present, I don't think the timing of the comments makes the mob any more virtuous. In the end a mob is a bad thing, and a mob is a mob regardless of the intentions of who started it.
True, however this specific situation is definitely right-wing mob injustice. Their batting the ball back to the other side is just bad faith, since they're using it to justify their actions—and I've definitely heard that side argue "two wrongs don't make a right!" before, while continuing to engage in making wrongs.
Between "but the left did it!" and "because they're a bad person based on things from years ago", I can't help but feel the former is a degree worse than the latter as a rationale (though they're both bad reasons).
In summation, I think where the left-sided agitators are more inclined to judge too harshly but do not do it to "own the right", but the right-sided agitators are more insidious and vindictive about it and always seem to aim for "own the libs".
I get what you are saying, I just don't think its relevant to my point because the result is the same; a mob of angry people used a social media platform to get someone fired. I think no matter the reason for the mob, it's a questionable tactic and has a chilling effect on internet speech. There's no hard rules when it comes to what will cause a virtual mob or not.
I didn't think they were funny but I think people should be allowed to say them. Also however if you're employed by a kid friendly company you should expect to risk your job. My biggest beef is that Disney hired him AFTER the jokes were made and only fired him once the court of public opinion brought them up.
Thing is, those jokes were old, he apologized long ago, and Disney already knew about them. They only fired him to save face.
I wonder how many people haven't made similarly ill-advised jokes at some point in their past. Gunn's biggest crime was having them publicly documented.
What really gets me is that many of the same people will defend themselves with "it's just a joke, you can't take it seriously or judge someone by a joke!". And yet here they were, getting someone fired and making judgements against them for jokes.
I mean...I haven't, and I don't know any people I'm friendly with or towards that have posted similarly poor jokes on social media. It's not a normal thing, and we shouldn't try to normalize it. It was definitely a mistake for him to publish his statements, and that's an extra step that I do think makes this different from sharing similar jokes with your friends. He should have known better.
I get the beef with Disney firing him. I don't agree with Disney firing him for statements he made and apologized for 8-10 years ago. I'm with you on that.
I meant that people may have made those jokes at all, in general. I'm sure everyone has strayed into off-colour and vulgar jokes at some point in their life, even if by accident. I feel like every teenage boy goes through an edgy phase at some point and then regrets the views they held or things they've said.
Sure, I agree with you there. I don't think this is one of those teenage-boy-regret cases, though. It wasn't one or two stray jokes told in private or in text, it was a string of poorly formed jokes published on twitter. And James Gunn wasn't a teenager when he wrote them(He's 52 now so he was in his 40's when he wrote those) . He wasn't even figuratively young to the movie scene, so he can't really claim ignorance of how social media works. He thought some messed up stuff, went the extra mile to post them, and then later apologized for it. I understand that, and I'm all for forgiveness. But we shouldn't downplay what he did in order to forgive him.
To be clear, what exactly are we keeping in mind that he did? As far as I understand, he did something really stupid in jest. I feel like that's really not a big deal overall.
I don't think movie industry experience is the same as social media experience. I doubt anyone could have seen what social media would be like in 2018 back in 2008. It was a different era too, where such jokes were more acceptable as well.
The only reason I think Disney's reaction is wrong is because this happened long ago enough that I can give the guy the benefit of doubt and believe him when he says he has changed as a person. If this happened a couple months or even a couple years ago, I would be more understanding of Disney's decision. I do think what he said is a big deal overall, and if that's where we differ in opinion then I think that may be the end of any productive conversation --if only because our priorities are on different points of the situation.
social media's basic premise -- being a public place where what you said is heard by so many-- hasn't changed. That's what gets me. He said this in public and thought that was ok. Again, he wasn't a teenager. He was in his 40's. He's a grown man. He should have known better.
edit: got rid of a plural somewhere
Have you seen the tweets? I have never heard anyone make jokes like that and I don't think I would want to work with someone who did. I get that it was a long time ago, but he was a successful director in his mid-40s, not a confused teenager. I just don't think it's that unreasonable to fire a public figure for saying fucked up stuff, and I don't think this is going to open the door to many others being fired for old tweets, because seriously, nobody says stuff like that.
I do think they're jokes that super edge lord teenagers would be making more for a rise than a laugh. As Ochre said, he was a grown man who should have known better.
But, hey, it was still ten years ago and he did apologize for it. I feel like that should count for a lot.
What exactly made you take that stance?
I think it's also important to mention that this is an especially ridiculous stance for them because Disney's own empire was largely built on public-domain stories. Yes, they have some original properties and characters, but a huge part of their most beloved ones are based on public-domain stories like The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Jungle Book, and so many others: https://medium.com/@derekkhanna/disney-works-based-on-public-domain-eb49ac34c3da
Thats a huge one for me, the vast majority of their more famous works are based on stories that are/were in the public domain. It's asinine the way the have been able to manipulate the situation to their benefit.
Unfortunately, I have a 4 year old son that is a massive pixar fan so avoiding their IP is very hard for me.
Yeah I can agree with that, but personally it's not enough for me to boycott their entire company. Perhaps if they hadn't taken over Star Wars I'd be more on board with it, but that franchise is a little too near and dear to me to take a firm stance on copyright law. But I appreciate you explaining your side on it.
This isn't trolling I'm genuinely curious why someone would have taken a moral objection to Disney before this.
edit:
I wasn't trolling the other post either I just don't feel like explaining it the 15th time in the same thread.
Take your pick.
Is there anything specifically huge I'm missing here besides "old people being racist", "business getting caught bending laws to pay less money", and "One person making bigoted comment that happens to work for company"?
I'm genuinely wondering what makes Disney uniquely terrible in the entertainment world or if you're just so hardcore that you boycott all entertainment companies.
They were Troma style offensive jokes because he was working at Troma around the time. What's interesting is that these tweets came out years ago & Gunn responded to them.
h/t Jeff Burk
It's also worth noting, despite its taboo, Troma talked about LGBT & other issues decades before any one else was willing. Even if Troma is not someone's taste / it's a form of creativity that highlights farcical via parody.
Guess no one knows what Troma is anymore.
Hypocrisy of it:
Fact is Disney knew about this when they hired Gunn years ago
https://movieweb.com/james-gunn-firing-disney-why-its-wrong/
There are so many articles about this...
"Gunn’s firing proves that businesses still haven’t figured out how to tell when they’re facing a genuine controversy — and when they’re just getting played by right-wing activists."
I mean, the entire foundation of their shtick is based in propaganda. Twisting, contorting facts and meaning. Of which Manufactured outrage is a big part.
They want to blur the lines, conflate confuse and then destroy basic ethics and standards of humanity, until people become so sick of overly pc shit that they just accept horrific hateful rhetoric and behavior without pause.
There are contextual differences... Not even nuanced. It's daunting to watch ppl lose the capacity for critical thinking, and become incapable of recognizing when they are being played /manipulated.
Does this latest Cernovich bs campaign pass the taste /smell test of pseudo bs? No.
I am generally not a big fan of the Daily Beast. However, this article imo is the most thorough, detailed look at intent.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/james-gunns-firing-from-guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-3-is-a-disastrous-win-for-right-wing-mobs
How the alt-right wields and weaponises accusations of paedophilia
“It’s is a powerful weapon to use against one’s political enemies because,the accusation alone can be enough to permanently ruin someone’s reputation"
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5b5265cce4b0fd5c73c570ac
And here's another..
https://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/internet/2018/01/how-alt-right-wields-and-weaponises-accusations-paedophilia