James Gunn dropped from GOTG 3

[Conch22]

As a thought that's fine. But desert doesn't enter into it. We don't mete out who gets free speech.

That is true, but I'm good with holding Gunn to the principle on free speech he strongly advocated

[Conch22]

You're arguing "both sides" when one of those sides are Nazis. It's disgusting and you should stop. It is not a good look.

No, I am not. Bad behavior is bad behavior. Period.

[Kevinroc]

No, I am not. Bad behavior is bad behavior. Period.

Literally arguing "both sides" when one of those sides are Nazis.

This is peak 2018.

[Osiris-Rex]

Repeat, doesn't change the fact that Gunn's own tweets is the only reason for his firing.

Disney already knew about the tweets. It was Cernovich publishing them that made Disney change their minds. If Cernovich hadn't published them, Gunn would still be working. So the tweets weren't the only reason.

[Star_Jammer]

Disney already knew about the tweets. It was Cernovich publishing them that made Disney change their minds. If Cernovich hadn't published them, Gunn would still be working. So the tweets weren't the only reason.

I’d blame hysteria around Tweets hurting a company’s image as the main thing to blame, which was exploited, but maybe that’s just me.

Basically: sheeple.

[Conch22]

Literally arguing "both sides" when one of those sides are Nazis.

This is peak 2018.

But the Nazi's said this is bad and even though many people who aren't Nazi's would agree for reasons unrelated to Nazi ideology, let's conflate the 2 and infer dissenters are apologists. How about having principles you stick to instead of having principles that necessitate being switched up to spite a particular opponent, even if the argument has nothing to do with Nazi ideology

[Dum Dum Dugan]

You asked for an example where that could be acceptable, I obliged. I explained the context of different forms of abuse and assault and why people have different reactions to it, based on severity and target. You completely sidestepped the victim blaming point as you seem more concerned with partisan bickering than showing compassion, unless it's for someone who advocated for someones termination if their words are considered abhorrent. That was Gunns position, not mine. If he had principles and empathy when it was happening to others besides himself, I would be asking for more consideration on Disneys part, despite this looking really bad. He didn't, so he doesn't have entitlement to that support he recently rejected in his condescending lecture of a tweet.


But your trying to muddy the waters despite a number of Gunns own actions being his own undoing. But the timing, the remarks he admitted were wrong, his repeated molester cosplay and joking about molesting children with a pedophile, that's creating unreasonable concerns about someone who has and may very well in the future work with children in an industry that was recently revealed to have a number of wealthy sexual predators in it's ranks. Being concerned and understanding Disneys wanting to not associate with this person in the future, that's just crazy apparently. Completely baseless in terms of concern for financial loss and actual wrongdoing.


Maybe the takeaway should be Gunn is okay with people being fired for social media posts publicly (spare me the timeline technicality, this isn't the O.J. case) and he's reaping what he sows, despite reportedly privately fighting it tooth and nail (when it's personally effecting him, of course. Others can suffer a job loss for bad tweets, but not James Gunn, he's special, but privately himself to try to avoid looking like a massive hypocrite and publicly with his good friend Bautista on his behalf, as Bautista is a harder replacement).


Paragon of virtue, certainly.


And for the person that implied I'm rightwing, I'm not. I've laid out my reasoning pretty coherently for why Gunns firing is justified, agree or not. This attempt at a Gunn comparison by misconstruing my very clear points regarding context for different situations, both moral implications and financial, doesn't make you look clever. Just like childish hacks that can't concede my point that repeatedly pretending to be one of the worst things in the world could have understandably negative consequences

Lol at you accusing me of victim blaming when you're making excuses for why it's okay for guys to beat up women.

And spare me the concern about him being a danger to children. The actors who actually beat up or sexually harass women and still have their jobs there probably pose more of a threat than a guy who was only guilty of using offensive humor ten years ago. There have been no stories, rumors, or allegations about Gunn being anything but a nice guy to his actors.

And it's not a technicality; if Roseanne was held to Gunn's standard she wouldn't have been hired in the first place, and if Gunn was held to her standard he'd still be at Disney. ABC let her have her own show despite her well-known history of tweeting hateful stuff and peddling dangerous conspiracy theories, but fired Gunn when an alt-right Nazi rapist dug up some old tweets from a decade ago.

[Kevinroc]

But the Nazi's said this is bad and even though many people who aren't Nazi's would agree for reasons unrelated to Nazi ideology, let's conflate the 2 and infer dissenters are apologists. How about having principles you stick to instead of having principles that necessitate being switched up to spite a particular opponent, even if the argument has nothing to do with Nazi ideology

The Nazis weaponized outrage to be used against Trump's critics and got one of them fired. And you're arguing that's totally okay.

And you're also arguing "blindly standing against Nazis is dumb" which is just the worst take I think I have ever seen in my life.

[Alan2099]

If a Nazi hacks up five or six people with a chainsaw, I'm not going to listen to him when he points to the guy with a boxcutter and says he might hurt somebody theoretically.

[Conch22]

Lol at you accusing me of victim blaming when you're making excuses for why it's okay for guys to beat up women.

And spare me the concern about him being a danger to children. The actors who actually beat up or sexually harass women and still have their jobs there probably pose more of a threat than a guy who was only guilty of using offensive humor ten years ago. There have been no stories, rumors, or allegations about Gunn being anything but a nice guy to his actors.

And it's not a technicality; if Roseanne was held to Gunn's standard she wouldn't have been hired in the first place, and if Gunn was held to her standard he'd still be at Disney. ABC let her have her own show despite her well-known history of tweeting hateful stuff and peddling dangerous conspiracy theories, but fired Gunn when an alt-right Nazi rapist dug up some old tweets from a decade ago.

I brought up men being victim blamed when they are the victims of abuse from a female spouse, then noted how you avoided addressing that point. I brought up 2 instances that qualify as self defense since you asked.

Gunns in favor of Roseannes firing, I've gone over all the other extenuating circumstances regarding Roseanne and Gunn and I'm not redoing it when the responses are this poor

[Conch22]

Nazi's are against Muslim terror, that doesn't all of a sudden make me pro ISIS. Maybe sticking to principled arguments is better than on the basis of group think?

Waiting to be called Hitler for that statement (maybe switch it up to Goebbels or Mengele, the Hitler insult is very overdone)

A Nazi tells me staying in a burning building is a bad idea, I'm not going to do the opposite to spite them. That doesn't mean I endorse that ideology just because I agree with one of them on something unrelated to Nazism. This group think, polarized politics political divide is what led to so much dirt being dug up on Gunn in the first place. It is not a good practice. Richard Spencer is also against free speech and his speech can get shut down. If he's not in favor of it, he doesn't deserve it's protections

That is not what I said, I will reclarify. If a Nazi says murder is wrong, I'm not going to say the opposite when I know that is incorrect. Fanatical, politically divisive partisanship led to this situation exploding and many others, it is not a good practice irregardless of political leaning, it's salem type justice. People who don't support free speech do not deserve it's protections, it's called karma

What part of something that's true is true despite who says it and being a fanatic is bad period is unclear here? Those are not pro Nazi positions.

That is true, but I'm good with holding Gunn to the principle on free speech he strongly advocated

No, I am not. Bad behavior is bad behavior. Period.

But the Nazi's said this is bad and even though many people who aren't Nazi's would agree for reasons unrelated to Nazi ideology, let's conflate the 2 and infer dissenters are apologists. How about having principles you stick to instead of having principles that necessitate being switched up to spite a particular opponent, even if the argument has nothing to do with Nazi ideology

The Nazis weaponized outrage to be used against Trump's critics and got one of them fired. And you're arguing that's totally okay.

And you're also arguing "blindly standing against Nazis is dumb" which is just the worst take I think I have ever seen in my life.

Note the part where I stated polarized politics and salem type justice is not a good practice. If an ISIS member says something I know to be factual, I'm not going to hold the opposite opinion out of spite, particularly when that has nothing to do with the ideology. You can think that's the worst take all you want.

[Dum Dum Dugan]

I brought up men being victim blamed when they are the victims of abuse from a female spouse, then noted how you avoided addressing that point. I brought up 2 instances that qualify as self defense since you asked.

Gunns in favor of Roseannes firing, I've gone over all the other extenuating circumstances regarding Roseanne and Gunn and I'm not redoing it when the responses are this poor

What point? You were talking about how you'd feel safer leaving your kid with someone with a history of domestic violence versus someone with a history of innapropiate jokes, because maybe there's a chance the former was only defending himself.

And there aren't any extenuating circumstances with Roseanne. Abc gave her a chance despite her extremely offensive behavior in the past, they're not giving Gunn that chance.

[Kevinroc]

Note the part where I stated polarized politics and salem type justice is not a good practice. If an ISIS member says something I know to be factual, I'm not going to hold the opposite opinion out of spite, particularly when that has nothing to do with the ideology. You can think that's the worst take all you want.

https://newrepublic.com/article/1445...y-unknown-king

Like Captain America, Kirby had a chance to fight Nazis himself when he was drafted in 1943. He served in the 11th infantry under General George Patton, landing in Omaha Beach two months after D-Day. For the rest of his life, he told happy stories about fighting Nazis during the day while having nightmares about combat at night. Cartoonist Stan Sakai recalls meeting Kirby at a publisher’s party in the 1980s. “He always told his war stories,” Sakai remembers in the new oral history We Told You So: Comics as Art (Fantagraphics, 2016) by Tom Spurgeon and Michael Dean. “They were different stories, but it always ended with him killing four Nazis. He hated Nazis.”

[Conch22]

Not a fan of social media hatemobs calling for peoples jobs.

James Gunn apparently is though when it's happening to others, so he can be held to his own standards, surely. Neither the Roseanne tweet or Gunn tweets resulted in anything other than a whambulance needing to be called for hurt feelings. These companies want to distance themselves from either trainwreck, they surely have morals clauses and leeway with contracts to do just that to these unfortunate millionaire victims of their own statements. If there's a demand for both products and nothings been hurt outside of the feelings of random people killing time, I mean involved in a serious situation people are going to care about or remember 5 years from now, then think of the audience demand and if that outweighs the half-hearted moral panic over the heavily medicated, mentally ill senior citizen comparing a light skinned woman that does not look to be of sub-Saharan African descent (is possibly multi-racial) to (Planet of the Apes, the movie?) and edgy boy director that made an exorbitant amount of pedo jokes, apparently had a friend busted with CP and supposedly went to a pedophilia themed party at some point.


Why would these studios possibly be concerned with risking millions of dollars and numerous jobs on these 2 actors situations? Particularly with the recent Spacey revelations, among many others and the racism revealed from the Sony hack? This is very unfair to those 2 people and no one else, surely.

This is the prior post where I mentioned context, here it is. I stated neither situation was preferable, but the situation least likely to result in abuse was preferable. I'll be back later to continue the therapy session, take care

[Dum Dum Dugan]

This is the prior post where I mentioned context, here it is. I stated neither situation was preferable, but the situation least likely to result in abuse was preferable. I'll be back later to continue the therapy session, take care

So a man with a history of domestic violence or accusations of sexual harassment is less likely to hurt someone than a man who made some offensive jokes a long time ago but has no reports of treating anyone improperly. Thanks for clearing that up.