Disney fires James Gunn from "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3"

[TREK_GOD_1]

It's not unheard of, no, but I'm not sure I'd agree it's common to use these kinds of tactics on non-politicians just because they publicly criticized someone.

Actually, there's the case of MSNBC's Joy Reid, who--in 2005--used her blog to advocate the removal of Jews from Israel--by force--and although she now sells herself as the champion of gay rights, was recently exposed for her 2007-09 blog posts where she ridiculed politicians she thought were closeted gays, used the "humor" of gay sex, and other stereotypes to attack others she thought were gay. Reid constantly lied, saying the blog posts were not hers, which only angered the offended groups. For the record, MSNBC--like certain people in the Gunn case--are only offended by speech when the source is from the "wrong" political side; MSNBC still employs Reid, yet that decision is undoubtedly hypocritical, since they dropped Imus in the Morning (in 2007) after the controversy of conservative Don Imus's racist comments about the Rutgers women's basketball team. By MSNBC's own stated "standards", Reid should have suffered the same fate as Imus, but that did not happen.

Both deserved to be booted to the curb.

If the problem is that you don't think he crossed a line, then why are you constantly framing it in liberal/conservative terms? If you disagree with where the line is, whether he is a liberal or conservative has nothing to do with the conversation.

True.

And if you're just worried about crazy conservatives taking over because they're willing to be hypocrites and we aren't, then Gunn isn't relevant to the conversation. That issue is much bigger and is not going to be solved by just giving up and becoming hypocrites too.

Either way, your insistance on conflating the two conversations is ridiculous.

Indeed.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Actually, there's the case of MSNBC's Joy Reid, who--in 2005--used her blog to advocate the removal of Jews from Israel--by force--and although she now sells herself as the champion of gay rights, was recently exposed for her 2007-09 blog posts where she ridiculed politicians she thought were closeted gays, used the "humor" of gay sex, and other stereotypes to attack others she thought were gay. Reid constantly lied, saying the blog posts were not hers, which only angered the offended groups. For the record, MSNBC--like certain people in the Gunn case--are only offended by speech when the source is from the "wrong" political side; MSNBC still employs Reid, yet that decision is undoubtedly hypocritical, since they dropped Imus in the Morning (in 2007) after the controversy of conservative Don Imus's racist comments about the Rutgers women's basketball team. By MSNBC's own stated "standards", Reid should have suffered the same fate as Imus, but that did not happen.

Both deserved to be booted to the curb.

I meant people outside the immediate realm of politics. Political pundits fall in the same category as politicians, for me. My fault for not being clear.

 

[Noname Given]

And where does one draw the line between jokes in poor taste and toxicity?

"Family Guy" has been airing for years, and I find it hard to believe Gunn's jokes were so horribly worse than some of the things that show's touched on. They had an inappropriately joyful song about someone being diagnosed with AIDS, for starters (the closest I recall personally coming to walking away).

I don't think FG has gone as far as jokes about child-rape. Just saying...

 

[Doom Shepherd]

I don't think FG has gone as far as jokes about child-rape. Just saying...

Herbert exists. He's pretty much full of those jokes.

 

[BillJ]

I don't think FG has gone as far as jokes about child-rape. Just saying...

They have. There are certain times Family Guy has made me cringe. At the same time, the biggest joke is that many white males are ignorant about the world around them and are doing stupid shit in the name of that ignorance.

American Dad! is very similar.

 

[Jayson1]

But why should Gunn in particular need to be made a poster-child for forgiveness and not, let's say, John Lasseter? How about Stephen Collins (aka Decker Unit) if you want an issue that went way way back?

If forgiveness is a virtue then who receives it and who doesn't?

So you can cry foul over mob justice, but mob forgiveness is just as fickle and selective.

The reason Gunn got fired is because the current cultural atmosphere is that of zero-tolerance for toxicity--with no statute of limitations.

I don't have a problem with forgiving any of them if they reform but from what I understand Collins didn't just show bad behavior but broke the law and should actually be doing jail time. If the issue is whether or not someone should be fired or not I think it comes down to the level of offense. Sexual misconduct liking grabing a women's rear and stuff like that is a clear good reason to fire someone. Breaking the law as well except minor stuff like speed tickets or being caught with weed. Bad jokes though seem too far unless it's aimed at a specific person as in a real person and not a construct invented for a punchline. I do think their are exceptions though and you got to look at each case on it's own merrits. Roseanne can be seen as one of those exceptions because of some of the past stuff she has posted and i'm not talking about her support for Trump. Just being a Trump supporter isn't something that alone should get you fired. For example I have no issue with Tim Allen getting a show. As far as I know he hasn't broken the law since he was younger and got arrested and payed is debt to society. I don't believe in the idea of a zero-tolerance on anything except for the very biggest of crimes like murder,rape etc. I would prefer each case be looked at seperate because every human is different and ever situation is different. I think it should be done fairly and inpartial as you can be without issues of politics getting in the way. Granted that's hard for humans to do because who doesn't let things impact our views that we shouldn't. At least we should try though.

Jason

 

[Jayson1]

And where does one draw the line between jokes in poor taste and toxicity?

"Family Guy" has been airing for years, and I find it hard to believe Gunn's jokes were so horribly worse than some of the things that show's touched on. They had an inappropriately joyful song about someone being diagnosed with AIDS, for starters (the closest I recall personally coming to walking away).

One is on tv and the other is on the internet. I think part of issue is people still haven't really decided what the internet is. Tv and movies and comedy stages for example are see as places were art is happening. They are clearly works of fiction. The internet though is both real and not real at the same time. Real people are on it yet it is nothing like how normal human interaction happens in real life, like not even know what the person looks like your talking to. For ever person who takes the internet so serious that they have a "persona" you got just as many who see's it as a diversion in life or they see the artificual nature of it. Plus the internet started off with no rules and people did whatever they wanted on it. It was a free place with no restrictions. Then big business started to exploit and all of sudden it becomes yet another way for them to make money and then average people started seeing themselves kind of stars. I think the internet has been a boom to helping people indulge in their ego in away you can't in the real world. Combine that with Foxnews polluting people's minds with lies and hate and then half of the older people who still recall life pre-internet and younger people who have know it their entire life like how everyone has grown up knowing tv and you can see why people can get confused as to what is acceptable behavior in the internet. Acceptable behavior is much easier to figure out in real life and also on tv and movies except until recently when now people want to apply rules that should work well in real life to fiction and of course that also creates more conflict. It's one of the reasons PC gets thrown around alot. Some people see a bigger line between art and real life than others.

Jason

 

[Jayson1]

I don't think FG has gone as far as jokes about child-rape. Just saying...

They have made two pedophile jokes I can recall but they never made a joke about the actual sex act of it which I am pretty sure is seen as terrible by anyone though I am guessing that is why Gunn went their. He wanted to take it to the extreme going to a place your not suppose to in order to provoke shock. Anyways the two "Family Guy " guys jokes was one about a narastic pedophile who wanted pictrues of himself and the other was a Micheal Jackson joke about him doing a cereal commerical where the kid version of him says something like "I like the fiber inside me" or something like that then you transition to older Jackson saying :I like the little kid inside of me" or something like that. Of course this also skips over the many of adult situations Stewie has been in but then Stewie is only sometimes written as a baby depending on the jokes they come up with that week.

Jason
I should note I forgot about Herbert. With him though like the other jokes they never show him ever having sex with kids. Showing or talking about the very sex act is I think the line were I don't think even most of the edgiest comics would go.

Jason

 

[Mudd]

And where does one draw the line between jokes in poor taste and toxicity?

Wherever the individual is so inclined, I guess.

I like a lot of Family Guy.

 

[Jayson1]

Wherever the individual is so inclined, I guess.

I like a lot of Family Guy.

Isn't that true for all risque humor? Or drama as well? I know people who dislike violence just as much as sexual stuff on tv and the movies.

Jason

 

[Mudd]

Isn't that true for all risque humor? Or drama as well?

Jason

Uh, yes...

 

[JD]

But why should Gunn in particular need to be made a poster-child for forgiveness and not, let's say, John Lasseter? How about Stephen Collins (aka Decker Unit) if you want an issue that went way way back?

For me the big difference with those two and Gunn, is that they actually did stuff to people. To me anything that physically involves another person is at a much worse level than just telling jokes. I don't think Gunn ever told jokes about specific people, that also would have been worse for me.

And where does one draw the line between jokes in poor taste and toxicity?

"Family Guy" has been airing for years, and I find it hard to believe Gunn's jokes were so horribly worse than some of the things that show's touched on. They had an inappropriately joyful song about someone being diagnosed with AIDS, for starters (the closest I recall personally coming to walking away).

They finally lost with the episode where they made jokes about Peter being raped by a bull at a rodeo.

 

[Jayson1]

For me the big difference with those two and Gunn, is that they actually did stuff to people. To me anything that physically involves another person is at a much worse level than just telling jokes. I don't think Gunn ever told jokes about specific people, that also would have been worse for me.

They finally lost with the episode where they made jokes about Peter being raped by a bull at a rodeo.

You know how they got the bull joke through. You don't see the rape, the bull is a animal and not human and also the bull is one who does it. Even though edgy humor is seen as having no rules I think their is proably more rules than any other kind of joke because they know their are lines that people aren't comfortable with even if you like humor that is edgy or dark. Even insult comics seem to know their are things that just get to gross or offensive.

Jason

 

[mos6507]

For me the big difference with those two and Gunn, is that they actually did stuff to people.

But we're in a climate where cultural attitudes are seen as a battleground. Speech = influence and that influence leads to action. And this goes for both ends of the spectrum. You know in Europe there are radical clerics that openly sympathize and preach terrorism. Because of free speech laws it's very difficult to tamp down on this incitement to violence.

Rightly or wrongly there's a lot of attention spent deconstructing media for messages that some feel promulgate oppression/prejudice of some kind.

Most would agree, thanks to the passage of time, that Pickaninny humor is a form of racism:

It was a way for a group of people to express their hatred in a way that wasn't actionable.

Gunn's tweets don't necessarily endorse racism/pedophilia, but they reflect a value-system where it's more important to get a rise out of people than to respect their sensibilities. Gunn didn't care back then how someone who had been sexually molested might feel having his or her experience exploited this way. All he cared about was getting a rise out of people for being edgy.

It may not rise to the level of a formal crime but it's repugnant in its own way.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

How many followers of his, though, would be likely to have been people that would have gone through those experiences to be offended by him? If not for the controversy I didn't even know he did this.

If somebody makes a bad joke and nobody even hears it, how bad can it be? It seems pretty easy to avoid stuff we don't like. Really easy, in fact. If not for media and angry people with some sort of agenda actively looking for and throwijg this in our faces (and this isn't just regarding Gunn) nobody would notice or care. This is the age of click-bait and that's part of the bigger problem.

 

[DonIago]

We do seem to now be living in the age of trigger warnings. And I say that as someone who takes real issue with the notion that Political Correctness is some sort of abhorrent concept, in the sense that I don't see anything wrong with at least -trying- to tone down the offensive language.

 

[mos6507]

How many followers of his, though, would be likely to have been people that would have gone through those experiences to be offended by him? If not for the controversy I didn't even know he did this.

I'm actually surprised more people hadn't discovered it until now. After all, Guardians is as mainstream as it gets so his Twitter followers must be well stocked with people from all walks of life, not just edgy manboys with Troll doll haircuts and horn-rimmed glasses. It's just that the internet focuses on the now and old stuff is buried in such a way that it takes more effort to view than most would care to spend.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

How many followers of his, though, would be likely to have been people that would have gone through those experiences to be offended by him? If not for the controversy I didn't even know he did this.

If somebody makes a bad joke and nobody even hears it, how bad can it be? It seems pretty easy to avoid stuff we don't like. Really easy, in fact. If not for media and angry people with some sort of agenda actively looking for and throwijg this in our faces (and this isn't just regarding Gunn) nobody would notice or care. This is the age of click-bait and that's part of the bigger problem.

The point is that he thought there was humor in rape/pedophilia at all / was fine to express this in social media, which makes a serious comment on his personality and lack of humanity. It does not matter if any of the individuals who read his tweets were not victims of either attack, its the fact he--apparently--did not give a damn that victims of those crimes actually exist when making his so-called "jokes". People have been fired for posting racist "jokes" none of the intended targets did not see or know about until it was uncovered some time later, but some employers feel merely having those beliefs made him/her undesirable / offensive as an employee, co-worker and potentially an explosive situation waiting to happen. If making despicable statements is so important to some, they should be prepared for and accept action against them from an employer, not to mention longstanding, deserved damage their public image.

 

[UssGlenn]

Not going back through all 23 pages, but have we had any discussion of the actual jokes in question or just in their subject matter in the abstract? I read an analysis of the 38 tweets in question on reddit, and there's a clear effort to willfully spin the subject matter the worst way possible of quite a few of them by those who wanted to get him fired.

 

[mos6507]

there's a clear effort to willfully spin the subject matter the worst way possible of quite a few of them by those who wanted to get him fired.

The jokes hardly need spin. I might have been willing to shrug off one or two as isolated lapses in judgment but the sheer volume of them really pushes it over the line for me. It really seemed like he was literally shouting fire in a crowded theater back then, as though any attention = good attention.