James Gunn fired from Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3. [re-hired]

[DaFace]

[Gravedigger]

Originally Posted by DaFace

I would imagine Disney will keep course. It would be interesting if they changed course though, to see if making that much money on a movie overrides bad PR in their minds.

[ToxSocks]

Originally Posted by Gravedigger

I would imagine Disney will keep course. It would be interesting if they changed course though, to see if making that much money on a movie overrides bad PR in their minds.

I have a hard time believing that the majority of fans are upset about this enough to want Gunn fired. It'd be nice if a company would have the majority's back instead of appeasing the whiny minority who complains about every damn thing.

[WhiteWhale]

Originally Posted by Detoxing

I have a hard time believing that the majority of fans are upset about this enough to want Gunn fired. It'd be nice if a company would have the majority's back instead of appeasing the whiny minority who complains about every damn thing.

Well, the tweets were public knowledge in 2012 when he apologized for them.

It's not like this is something we just found out about. It's just that right wing social justice warriors wanted some retribution for Gunn trolling Trump supporters and got some steam behind it.

If anyone actually cared about this, why weren't they bitching when he was hired?

I'm consistent. I'm sick of humorless ****s starting hate mobs to get people fired over jokes.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by WhiteWhale

Well, the tweets were public knowledge in 2012 when he apologized for them.

It's not like this is something we just found out about. It's just that right wing social justice warriors wanted some retribution for Gunn trolling Trump supporters and got some steam behind it.

If anyone actually cared about this, why weren't they bitching when he was hired?

I'm consistent. I'm sick of humorless ****s starting hate mobs to get people fired over jokes.

I'm curious why you used the term trolling to describe Gunn's activities and hate mob to describe his repercussions.
For that matter, your calculus in using the term retribution instead of repercussion might be interesting as well.

[WhiteWhale]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

I'm curious why you used the term trolling to describe Gunn's activities and hate mob to describe his repercussions.
For that matter, your calculus in using the term retribution instead of repercussion might be interesting as well.

These are pedantic questions that do nothing to address the issue of hyper sensitive pussies getting people fired for jokes on the internet. I used different words to prevent redundancy. It's normal. Gunn isn't innocent regarding whipping up hate mobs. I don't feel bad for HIM, I'm just sick of he disgusting hypocrisy and lack of any moral standard on this issue from all sides.

As for why I use retribution, the answer is obvious. It's a more accurate descriptor.

As far as I'm concerned i"m one of the only ****ing people around here who's consistent on this.

Don't fire people for jokes. Who they support politically doesn't alter my values as much as it does the rest. I'm against it. I don't feel bad for gunn as an individual. I just think you guys on both sides are making entertainment boring as **** all to win political points which serve NO ****ING PURPOSE other than self satisfaction.

I don't believe in gerrymandering my values. Never have. I'm a free speech advocate, not a "free speech for me, but not for thee" advocate. This is exactly why I said the worst thing the left can do is punt the issue of free speech to the right, because the right doesn't really value it. It's just a convenience for them now because the left is so openly against it and it's an easy win, but they'll abandon it overnight if that becomes the most beneficial path.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by WhiteWhale

These are pedantic questions that do nothing to address the issue of hyper sensitive pussies getting people fired for jokes on the internet. I used different words to prevent redundancy. It's normal. Gunn isn't innocent regarding whipping up hate mobs. I don't feel bad for HIM, I'm just sick of he disgusting hypocrisy and lack of any moral standard on this issue from all sides.

As for why I use retribution, the answer is obvious. It's a more accurate descriptor.

As far as I'm concerned i"m one of the only ****ing people around here who's consistent on this.

Don't fire people for jokes. Who they support politically doesn't alter my values as much as it does the rest. I'm against it. I don't feel bad for gunn as an individual. I just think you guys on both sides are making entertainment boring as **** all to win political points which serve NO ****ING PURPOSE other than self satisfaction.

I don't believe in gerrymandering my values. Never have. I'm a free speech advocate, not a "free speech for me, but not for thee" advocate. This is exactly why I said the worst thing the left can do is punt the issue of free speech to the right, because the right doesn't really value it. It's just a convenience for them now because the left is so openly against it and it's an easy win, but they'll abandon it overnight if that becomes the most beneficial path.

Well THAT was a tad more inflammatory, misguided and self-aggrandizing than I I expected. But you do you.

In the abstract, I agree that people are too sensitive. But I disagree that being sanguine about how Gunn is treated is 'abandoning a priniciple.'

I have the principle that people are too sensitive about a lot of things. But I also acknowledge that these sensitive people wield a lot of power and aren't going anywhere.

More importantly [for me, let me know if you disagree, . . . or even CONSIDERED] in the case of Gunn, this principle of against societal hypersenstivity comes up hard against another principle I have that people who are active in imposing rules must exist in the world they create, even when it doesn't go well for them.

I'm not abandoning the principle of free expression because Gunn is liberal, or because he's a vocal opponent of any particular thing or other that I support. I'm superceding that principle of free expression with the principle of living in the world you create because Gunn has been vocal in the excommunication and dispossession of people IN HIS VERY PROFESSION who say things that offend him EVEN IF THEY'RE JOKING.

I know plenty of entertainers who have said even MORE twisted stuff than Gunn, and I haven't said a thing . . . because they AREN"T HYPOCRITES about offensive speech. They're not leading the charge to create this environment you hate.

I don't know, maybe you're oblivious to how involved Gunn has been in shaming entertainers who go off reservation. Or maybe you know and don't care.

I still fully support free expression. But to make a living as an entertainer/creative is still a privilege. And it's a privilege with a queue of motivated and talented people a mile long right outside the door to replace the discarded. So I'm marginally less passionate about the free expression of an individual who has already been handsomely rewarded and chooses to devote so much of his time and power trying to shove nonconformists out of the boat, . . when that culture comes back and bites them in the ass.

And the purpose isn't simple retribution. As a hypothetical, suppose you and I shared identical levels of passion and devotion to free expression. And further suppose we are similarly outraged at the scandalmongering and shaming that drives people out of creative pursuits.

My hope in holding those who impose these restrictions to the standards they set is that they will one day be less judgmental if people they like [or people they are] suffer a bit from their own stifling environment. This incident with Gunn is an opportunity to alter perspectives.

What is your hope in letting the instigators escape their self-created repercussions? Your own self-satisfied adherence to principle? A MOVIE? What does your approach do to actually move towards societal realization of your precious principles?

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by Gravedigger

I would imagine Disney will keep course. It would be interesting if they changed course though, to see if making that much money on a movie overrides bad PR in their minds.

This seems like the first shot across the bow for the stars basically saying "No Gunn, no stars"

This is going to get interesting....

[Frazod]

Originally Posted by DaFace

I must have missed the open letter from the cast of Roseanne, most of whom owe her their careers, thanking her for all she did for them.