Tracey's joke was aimed at a specific individual would seem to be the particular problem in that case. However I would ask him do you believe that and if he said No, then I would be fine for him to keep his employment.
Disney fires James Gunn from "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3"
- Thread starter Lawrence B
- Start date
- Status
Tracey's joke was aimed at a specific individual would seem to be the particular problem in that case. However I would ask him do you believe that and if he said No, then I would be fine for him to keep his employment.
Are forgiveness and consequences mutually exclusive? I might forgive my son for doing something, doesn’t mean there are no consequences for his actions.
I’m glad Gunn has realized the awfulness of his tweets, but should “I’m sorry” be it?
If this was someone who didn’t make a couple of well respected romps, would we be having this conversation? If this was some random guy who was fired for posting racist tweets, even though he apologized, would we take his side? I’m not so sure.
Would I have fired Gunn? Probably not. Especially if I felt he was generally sorry. But, then, I’m not the sort of person who would be in charge at a company like Disney.
We live in a funny world if saying “I’m sorry” absolves us from all consequences.
I'm not even sure if what you do matters as long as it's not on the internet.
He has talked at length in interviews over the last few years about how getting the GotG gig made him reconsider a lot of things and one of them was realizing that he didn't actually like being the "edgy" trollish dickhead he had put on a show as for all those years. This wasn't a case of him suddenly apologizing out of the blue for some deep dark secret. He has been very open about regretting his past toxic behavior and how moving past it has improved his relationships and made him a happier person.
I have a question. What gives Disney or any corporation the power to determine what is right or wrong in society? Despite what the Supreme Court says, corporations aren't people. Even if your make that argument it is a person by pointing to the guy with the most shares, this person has way to much power basically giving him the power to alter society however they want towards people who haven't even broken any actually laws.
To me this stuff feels a little to close to not wanting to bake a cake for a gay couple because of "religious freedom" or the NFL striping it's players their freedom of speech for wanting to take a knee in protest because Trump himself abuses his power towards the owners by blackmailing them with the threat of removing the tax breaks they get, all of which I assume are legal. They get away with it because people sometimes have double standards and are okay with a abuse of power when it is in favor of things we agree with but then get outraged when it goes the other way. People's rights end at having a opinion on someone. Which means it's okay to take a stance these kind of jokes are wrong just like it is okay to take the other stance. People shouldn't have the right though to force their opinions to a point where you are getting people fired. As a liberal I also find it scary that most of these people who are doing the firing of people are lets face it, most likely Republicans. As a liberal does anyone really feel comfortable with having a rich beyond reason Republican who is part of the 1% dictating morality?
If people want people to change you need to talk to them on a human level. Not use their jobs as leverage to scare them into line. Why would anyone change if they felt they were basically being bullied into thinking differently? All it does it have everyone walking on eggshells wondering if they make one mistake it means they are ruined. How does that create a positive atmosphere in changing people's hearts and minds on issues? TO me compassion and forgiveness and listening actually makes people become more tolerant to other views. Maybe people don't always change but it does sometimes at least stop them from being a asshole about their views which is better than constant hate going back and forth between people.
Jason
To me this stuff feels a little to close to not wanting to bake a cake for a gay couple because of "religious freedom" or the NFL striping it's players their freedom of speech for wanting to take a knee in protest because Trump himself abuses his power towards the owners by blackmailing them with the threat of removing the tax breaks they get, all of which I assume are legal. They get away with it because people sometimes have double standards and are okay with a abuse of power when it is in favor of things we agree with but then get outraged when it goes the other way. People's rights end at having a opinion on someone. Which means it's okay to take a stance these kind of jokes are wrong just like it is okay to take the other stance. People shouldn't have the right though to force their opinions to a point where you are getting people fired. As a liberal I also find it scary that most of these people who are doing the firing of people are lets face it, most likely Republicans. As a liberal does anyone really feel comfortable with having a rich beyond reason Republican who is part of the 1% dictating morality?
If people want people to change you need to talk to them on a human level. Not use their jobs as leverage to scare them into line. Why would anyone change if they felt they were basically being bullied into thinking differently? All it does it have everyone walking on eggshells wondering if they make one mistake it means they are ruined. How does that create a positive atmosphere in changing people's hearts and minds on issues? TO me compassion and forgiveness and listening actually makes people become more tolerant to other views. Maybe people don't always change but it does sometimes at least stop them from being a asshole about their views which is better than constant hate going back and forth between people.
Jason
The problem with mob justice is there are no hard and fast rules on punishment, rehabilitation, and forgiveness. Everyone comes at it with their own emotional bias or agenda.
True justice should be blind, as they say. If there is virtue in forgiveness, then there should also, one would think, be some forgiveness extended to some of the #MeToo figures wouldn't you say? Maybe John Lasseter's manhugging or Al Franken's bad photo op doesn't equate to Weinstein or Cosby? When these things don't elevate themselves to the point of criminal offenses they fall into this gray area where the internet mob just argues about it like yet another hot potato topic.
Note that even once convicted criminals like Danny Trejo and Robert Downey Jr. are allowed to work in Hollywood. That's to say nothing of the various DUI and other vice/hot-mess-related offenses and vices that stars often rack up which the public usually quickly forgets.
I'm not saying Gunn does or doesn't deserve mercy as much as I know damn sure that internet chatter like this isn't going to offer due process.
Last edited:
1) Anything that doesn't rise to the level of legal consequences is always going to be a gray area and always has been a gray area. The lack of hard and fast rules about what to do in this area has always existed and will always exist.
2) That doesn't change the fact that companies have always been allowed to choose not to associate themselves with someone if they feel that person hurts their brand, nor the fact that consumers obviously have a right to hurt a company's brand (by not buying into it) if they feel it's associated with someone they don't want to support.
3) Forgiveness is a noble thing, but it typically comes after consequences not instead of them. Is Franken less of a jackass than Weinstein? Absolutely. Weinstein belongs in prison for the rest of his life. Franken just needs to get his head on straight, change his behavior and rebuild his credibility in a different field. I do not expect or believe for a second that this is the end of James Gunn's career in Hollywood. If Mel Gibson can still get work, then Gunn will be fine. Forgiveness will come for him, as it has for Downey Jr, Trejo and various others. Especially because he honestly seems to accept the fault and the consequences and to be very open about why what he did was wrong and how he regrets it.
2) That doesn't change the fact that companies have always been allowed to choose not to associate themselves with someone if they feel that person hurts their brand, nor the fact that consumers obviously have a right to hurt a company's brand (by not buying into it) if they feel it's associated with someone they don't want to support.
3) Forgiveness is a noble thing, but it typically comes after consequences not instead of them. Is Franken less of a jackass than Weinstein? Absolutely. Weinstein belongs in prison for the rest of his life. Franken just needs to get his head on straight, change his behavior and rebuild his credibility in a different field. I do not expect or believe for a second that this is the end of James Gunn's career in Hollywood. If Mel Gibson can still get work, then Gunn will be fine. Forgiveness will come for him, as it has for Downey Jr, Trejo and various others. Especially because he honestly seems to accept the fault and the consequences and to be very open about why what he did was wrong and how he regrets it.
The firestorm Morgan faced was centered more on the joke ending with he would kill someone who was gay, more than the subject being his son. The point being that the reaction and criticism Morgan faced also included calls for the man to lose his stand-up and TV jobs--all due to his exercising free speech in his routine. If the reaction to Morgan was seen as justified, then it is certainly justified in the reaction to Gunn's sickening use of free speech.
The reaction to Morgan was to his *contemporary behavior*. If there are still many people today calling for his resignation for his routine those years ago -- despite him having displayed better behavior in the interim, up to canceling a show in Mississippi to protest anti-LGBT legislation a couple years back -- then it'd be a more appropriate comparison.
He's still criticized by some gays and supporters, with his critics never buying that his apology was nothing more than damage control instead of a "I've seen the light!" moment for a man who told anti-gay jokes for years indicating a behavioral pattern.
Apparently when one exercises free speech for sick purposes does not matter--intent and message does. Let us not forget, we had endless media and democrat talking heads trying to use the Access Hollywood recording of Donald Trump--from 2005--as the smoking gun proving Trump was not fit for the presidency / threat to women everywhere. At the time of its unearthing in 2016, that tape and Trump's comments were 11 years in the past, yet that did not stop the media / democrat outrage and demands that he drop out of the race*. Was it overreacting to turn a 11-year old statement into a character assessment in the then-present day of 2016?
Again, it comes down to intent and message; If it applied to Trump's statement from over a decade in the past, then it has to apply to Gunn. Both had a long history of saying and/or posting stomach-turning things.
*Essentially handing it to you-know-who.
It isn't about what is right and wrong in society, they make their decisions based on how they think they will impact the bottom line. They have no obligation to keep Gunn on, nor did they have an obligation to fire him.
I belive Mr. Gunn will still have a directorial career after this, And I'm sure disney didn't do this as a knee jerk reaction. They done there research, investigated, talked about it, talked to him, and then took action. It wasn't just 1 person going OMG! Fire him!!
As for being a "Changed Man" I support 100% the ability to change, to grow. One may have been in a dark place, alcholic, etc. Sometimes all it takes is for 1 person to give you a chance, and then take that chance and get better. As for Gunn, his old "jokes" are horrible, but he said it was an "Edgy" part of his life, fine take him at his word. But alot of the stuff he's saying lately on the Twitter in response to Trump is abit beyond the pail as well, not that he doesn't deserve some of it.
He'll survive this, he'll get other gigs, he'll do an apology tour, etc. However, I suspect that he's being defended because that he is on the Left, and if this was someone on the right, nobody would be standing up for him, or defending him. I hate politics, if he/she was/is a good person, but in the past has made mistakes, let them appologize, look at what they've done since, and either forgive them, or kick him/her out untill they have proved themselves worthy of being let back in.
As for being a "Changed Man" I support 100% the ability to change, to grow. One may have been in a dark place, alcholic, etc. Sometimes all it takes is for 1 person to give you a chance, and then take that chance and get better. As for Gunn, his old "jokes" are horrible, but he said it was an "Edgy" part of his life, fine take him at his word. But alot of the stuff he's saying lately on the Twitter in response to Trump is abit beyond the pail as well, not that he doesn't deserve some of it.
He'll survive this, he'll get other gigs, he'll do an apology tour, etc. However, I suspect that he's being defended because that he is on the Left, and if this was someone on the right, nobody would be standing up for him, or defending him. I hate politics, if he/she was/is a good person, but in the past has made mistakes, let them appologize, look at what they've done since, and either forgive them, or kick him/her out untill they have proved themselves worthy of being let back in.
I'd say the biggest difference between Trump and Gunn is that Trump has continued this kind of behavior pretty much continuously since those tapes were recorded, while Gunn has since apologized and stopped that behavior. Not to mention the fact that Trump has an extensive history of bad behavior in person, while as far as I know Gunn's stuff has been pretty just bad jokes on Twitter.
I think for me that's the biggest point in Gunn's favor, since those posts, he has apologized and stopped the behavior. If had just continued to post nasty stuff constantly since the posts that got him fired, I would have been all for firing him.
If there's anything that I've learned about powerful people in Hollywood is that there are lots of incentives to keep silent when you're the target of things that fall into that gray area of being, if not sexual harassment per se, then at least toxifying the workplace enough that it would just kind of "look bad" if it were made public.
For instance, remember the Christian Bale rant? That had nothing to do with sex, but it was unacceptable behavior. It was unprofessional, despite (ironically) his plea "are you professional?"
Showbiz is just a different animal from your usual cubicle work and there seems to be a much higher tolerance for backstage drama and eccentricities of one sort or another than any of us would deal with in a regular job.
To long, stopped reading after the first question.
Because it’s a false question. No one, not even Disney, is suggesting they are doing what is right for society. They feel they are doing what is right for their brand. Which can be debated.
I don't necessarily disagree with any of this, but I'm not sure it applies when the incident in question 1) happened *before* said company hired him 2) was know to said company because 3) he had publicly addressed this all *years* prior.
Let's not pretend this is Disney being morally upstanding. It's a hit-job, plain and simple. Whether or not it was deserved in the first place is a whole other debate.
Also, more than a little hypocritical on the Mouse's part given it's far from spotless record of portraying certain minority groups in deeply offensive ways...
Let's not pretend any major business decision is morally upstanding. All major corporations protect themselves first and others only when it benefits them. All major corporations also have long histories of total bs that normal people would never have been allowed to get away with. That doesn't magically make them wrong in every situation no matter how unrelated.
Disney's decision in this situation is perfectly understandable. Even with them having known all of this before they hired him, it is still understandable to not want him to continue to be associated with the Marvel brand.
- Status