James Gunn fired from "Guardians of The Galaxy" for offensive tweets

The entire outrage campaign against him started when Mike Cernovich, a right-wing conspiracy theorist who publicly supports trump and also peddles the pizza-gate conspiracy, tweeted screenshots of the tweets as a way of drumming up outrage at Gunn because Gunn is very vocally anti-Trump on twitter. The entire controversy started because Gunn made Trump supporters mad, and they used anything they could to retaliate at that, and then Disney capitulated to their anger over something they almost certainly new about but are only doing something about to save face to the right wingers, which makes no sense either morally or financially (Gunn has made the company more than a billion dollars with his films and right wingers go to see films made by anti-Trump people all the time so the idea that a bunch of people mad on twitter was going to impact profits for a film that's 2 years away from release is absurd).

That's what is has to do with Trump. He's getting fired for making people mad for disliking trump, not for the jokes. The jokes are the mechanism Trump supporters on twitter used to get him fired.

No, I didn't laugh but.......


There's a very big difference between something not being funny, and... actually being offensive.


In the broader picture here: Not just Gunn's tweets...


A lot of what has been going on in the online world recently that affects the real world:
There's a difference on what is actually offensive, and what an individual person deems as offensive.
There's been a shift in society recently, and for some reason we are out of balance.


Someone tells a joke, or says something, whatever it may be (again, not just talking about James Gunn here)... and a handful of people "feel offended".
I mean, the person who told the joke shouldn't be publically crucified.
Again, not talking about James Gunn here, but, what has just happened is part of this growing problem in society.


I can't tell a joke these days in case I upset 1 out-of-work gay Asian vegan who is allergic to gluten and dairy.


The Snowflake Society that has cropped up recently is a bane on overall society itself.


As I said, society as a whole needs to give its head a frickin' wobble and pack in this millennial snowflake mentality of "I find it offensive, and my opinion is more important than anyone else's"

__________________

I really don't care but it is amazing how fast they jumped when it was from the right. And i obviously know that's not because they support the right or some nonsense but i consider it even worse, it's because any leftist backlash (some of which i don't think was warranted believe it or not) that was appeased has created a perfect opportunity for any critic of Trump to be looked into and banished.

Anyway i'd like to test how hypocritical i am because i think that's the worst quality and i'd like to better that if so. The thing here is i'm not that against him for this (i'm not that against Frankie Boyle and he's much more offensive and has to me pretty bad views) and i don't have a clue who he is, i haven't watched any Guardians of the Galaxy films and i had no idea he was a critic of Trump until i read that...i still don't know what that entails exactly if it's a barely left of center Obama bro then fck him too but i'd still stick with my position in any circumstance. I'd like to point out someone tried to defend Al Franken here, probably the American Senator most in line with my views and i was the first to interject with how terrible he is (can find the post(s)), something i didn't know beforehand obviously.

It's just bothering me so much here if i'm being hypocritical or not and i'd love someone i feel is objective like @Yoda if he remembers any of my posts/positions to point this out for me as i'd love to alter that behaviour.

I can kinda point one out myself which isn't even something i posted about here. I felt less sympathetic (although i don't think he should be banned or anything and i've said that from the start) for that baseball player whose prior social media posts were unearthed. Think the difference to me is one seemed to be laughing at how much he hated gays and the other was making jokes about how funny he found hating gays, unless i'm missing context.

Anyway, i really don't give a sht what happens here i've just got weird internal feelings about my reaction to this that i'd love to correct if they are off. Could have just PM'd Yoda or whatever but i feel that'd be cheap since i so often criticize others reactions.

If you're being hypocritical, I haven't noticed it.

I think charges of hypocrisy are mostly useless distractions, though, so I'm probably the wrong person to ask.

I agree to an extent. There does seem to be a serious issue of balance. You're either overly sensitive or a complete a*shole. There's no middle ground anymore. That's why you can't get caught up in the nonsense and just go with how you feel in terms of how to react to something. Ask yourself, does this actually offend me? Or, am I okay with this? The internet has played a huge role in mob mentality, not too many people bother reflecting before reacting. Now that should be a fortune cookie.

Personally i think the middle ground is a much worse position to take than either side and anyone i've been talking to in PM's here knows my problem with it. Mainly the smug, i'm not going to put myself at risk at all here with this worthless sentence but the kids will thumb me up and it'll imply that i made a good point.

Much prefer every single right member here than those people, i'd like them to actually practice what they preach and not talk about political issues since they don't have an opinion of it.

Also before a thousand people respond to this you're definitely not centrist you just like to say you are to avoid any meaningful debate. You suck basically.

On another note, something I think most of us will be able to agree on: Disney likely knew about the Tweets on some level prior to all of this, after all, James Gunn apologized for them 6 years ago before he started his work on Guardians of the Galaxy. Even if they didn't know, they would certainly know of Gunn's past of offensive subject-matter on-account of Troma, a low-budget company that often specialized in "schlock" and shocking films (in-fact, Lloyd Kaufman even made a cameo in Guardians of the Galaxy). The difference between then and now is the more recent events like the Me Too movement, the firing of Roseanne, and other events like that. If Disney doesn't, I wonder if they'll now start vetting their directors more extensively, (I've always appreciated Disney's willingness to take chances on unique directors like Taika, who had previously only been known for the horror-comedy What We Do in the Shadows), and if they always did, I wonder if backgrounds like Troma, comedians who've told offensive jokes, or directors who've made offensive movies, will now no longer be considered to direct their films.

Fortunately I'm not working for Disney because those tweets look like something I could write too. Vast majority of jokes I do are sexist, racist or otherwise offensive. I hate how people can't just ignore the stuff they don't like but feel the need to start a crusade every damn time someone says something they don't like.

https://www.thewrap.com/james-gunn-u...rdians-galaxy/

Yeah, as Braeden noted these tweets were dug up by this guy (and he doesn't even appear to be joking with this one):


(not embedding properly for some reason)

This guy isn't just some SJW who can't take a joke (though to be fair the jokes in question are all kinds of terrible), he's doing this in bad faith so as to shut down a vocally anti-Trump filmmaker. As has been noted, Gunn's tweets come from a decade ago, which is enough time to change his ways in the meantime. Cernovich jumping on this now as a means to weaponise people's outrage against someone he opposes comes across as moral and intellectual dishonesty, especially when it's ultimately being done in the service of upholding someone whose own moral and intellectual capacity is...not well-founded, to say the least.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Wow, I'm actually agreeing with @Iroquois Still the only reason this kind of weapon works against anyone is the modern SJW culture. If being offended wouldn't be such an apocalyptic event this would never have happened.

Maybe (but just maybe) this opens some eyes on the left wing that it works that way too. Though it will most likely just be considered a witch hunt against a righteous soul and things will go on exactly as before.

Weaponizing offense has never been an exclusively left-wing political tactic. "SJW's" didn't create it, nor are they the primary group of people using it.

The right has a history of using it far more often, see: the entire history of censorship of media to appeal to evangelical christians who are offended by sexual imagery or portrayals of anything LGBT+, the outrage at the nonexistent 'war on Christmas' that is mostly just conservatives offended by non-denominational holiday imagery or people saying 'happy holidays' to be more inclusive because that just seems like a common courtesy to them, the constant drone of angry people on the internet calling for boycotts of pretty much any major movie property that decides to have a diverse cast (because how dare they 'pander to the left' by choosing to cast anyone who isn't a straight cis white guy), etc.

Eventually people on the right are going to have to realize that they're not just weaponizing the tactics of the left, but that these are just the right's tactics.

This isn't to say that there aren't people on the left who do this, or that this is a thing that is never justified (there are definitely examples I can think of where the words someone says or the actions they take justify not supporting that person's and calling for them to take responsibility for said words/actions), it's just 'the only reason this kind of weapons works is the modern SJW culture' is a very obviously and provably false statement.

People have always been offended by stuff and used their offense to try and leverage for change, it's just that when people who were offended by, y'know, racism, sexism, bigotry, etc. and not portrayals of gay people and other minorities, started getting enough of a voice to make that offense known (and enough of a voice to talk about why, beyond just offense, that stuff in media is actively harmful to society) people who were perfectly fine not thinking about those things because they weren't affected by them suddenly felt like they were being imposed on, without realizing that it's the bigotry itself that was the imposition, and that asking to not be imposed upon is not imposing on others.

First, before replying further I need to make couple of things clear.

1) I'm an atheist and extremely anti-religion
2) I'm extremely against all kinds of censorhip
3) I don't belong to either left or right politically

Obviously it wasn't created by the current left because it has existed much longer than them. From the current European perspective though I'd like to disagree and say they are the primary group using it today.

I don't know how things exactly are in the US but as a European I disagree with majority of your points. Religion has been on a long steady decline of power in here (I'm pretty sure the last blasphemy case against art in Finland was during the 60s). For decades there has been bands, books and films that have openly mocked or attacked Christianity. Sure, some of them have faced adversity like Deicide who received death threats in US or Behemoth whose had some legal issues in Poland. For the most part people haven't cared for Christians getting offended.

But today it's different. Blasphemy is no longer criminalized in Finland but there's another article about religion (I don't know matching English term but it's about mocking something someone holds sacred). This law has been used multiple times and it's always been about Islam (left is traditionally anti-religious but they fully support Islam). In other words traditional Western values are and have been open target but foreign values must be protected.

Same thing with Christmas vs holiday. I'd be very happy if all religious references would be removed from stuff like schools but I don't accept the reasons that are most commonly given - SJWs want Christmas and Christianity out of schools because they're afraid Muslims are offended. And I've never heard about a boycott (in say, last decade or so) that's been for the reasons you mention.

To some degree they're the tactics of everyone in or aiming for power but I'm seeing much more examples from the left these days.

In majority of modern cases that statement isn't false though. Also I'd like to hear what sort of words in your opinion would justify this sort of retaliation?

I agree up to this point.

But I don't agree with this conclusion. Are you saying that now when practically everyone has means to make their voice heard we must remove everything that anyone finds offending? Where does that end? Do we just ban communication?

His own stupidity got him fired. You can't make those kind of jokes these days, and they are quite bad to be fair. This was 10 years ago when he was already a public figure. Plus saying those things on social media is it's own kind of stupid, go around making those jokes in private not where they remain forever.

__________________

It's hard to know where to stand on stuff like this, because you will never know the full context. Then you are either silent with your opinion or right or horribly wrong. No middle, no tolerance.


What is the difference between this and Roseanne? I am not defending her or her comments. She literally is a crazy person though, certified. Multiple personality disorder and other issues with multiple prescriptions for anti-psychotic medicines. Society deems mental health a disease or issue that requires treatment, yet not when someone can be so easily hated.


It just seems to me that we are becoming much more of an aggressive attack culture, in the name of doing what is right.


p.e. Can we start bashing Abe Lincoln? The stuff this guy said, crucified in today's climate.

Do you just mean officially with this? Like you don't vote right or belong to a right party? Because every political post i've seen you make is right leaning, often pretty far right. If not i'd be curious where you lean left or even centrist exactly?

There's none that's definitely where i was being hypocritical thanks for pointing that out although i had already changed my stance when i learned more about this.

Did anyone see the Roseanne video where she says "she thought the bitch was white"? Jesus christ. The still of that video made me think it was some tearful apology and it was actually some exasperated rant. Genuinely concerned for her sanity and this isn't some ridiculous insulting she went to the right thus she is insane thing, it's years after she did that i just think recently pre her comments that got the show cancelled even she doesn't seem like she is doing well mentally.

Edit: Actually if we're comparing the pattern of behaviours is what puts Roseanne down more. She has been saying offensive stuff for years and a lot of it hasn't been framed as a joke but something she actually believes.

Roseanne is definitely struggling now. A human being. I often stay away from these discussions because a superior debater aka Deadite, Yoda, Iro, all you guys...easily would tie me in knots.


I just sigh at how liberals are becoming increasingly like the conservatives in their lack of tolerance. In my real life I try to return a stranger's shopping cart, give the person at the intersection a dollar and keep in mind that we have all paid rent for a glass house.

I mean exactly what I said. Some of my opinions lean to right, some left and some neither.

From what's commonly seen as right I tend to agree with strict immigration policies, no "minority" quotas, credible national defenses, quite severe sentences for serious crimes (including death penalty in some cases), right to bear arms and right to defend yourself from attack.

From what's commonly seen as left I tend to agree with high social security, free education, legalization of drugs (at least weed, possibly some others - and no, I don't use drugs), minority rights (though as you might have noticed I see them differently - I don't believe in positive discrimination), total separation of state and religion.

From what I don't see either side truly advocating I tend to agree with personal freedom (and responsibility beyond social security), no censorship, non-politicized media, severe sentences for cases of corruption, freedom of speech for everyone/everything (personal libel doesn't fall under this, hate speech towards a group of people does).

That's quickly thrown together list to give you some sort of an idea.

Could you expand on the personal freedom part? Just curious what restrictions you disagree with exactly.

I don't think censorship is a fair word to use for the sorts of things i think you're complaining about (correct me if i'm wrong of course, there's nothing worse than someone creating your position for you then arguing against it) there's no rules, there's potential consequences because a group (and/or their supporters) doesn't like something but that's it. You rarely hear this argument if it's non minority related, gun owners or fundamental Christians aren't targeted by the right despite their obvious advantages not that they should since they largely agree with them, i'm only arguing against the language used when it's against the left. There's very little difference and there's just as much outrage when someone says some teen angsty thing against the flag or whatever. A perfect example is Roseanne/Kathy Griffin, the right were (rightfully) up in arms about Kathy's comment and the left leaning networks all (as far as i'm aware, if anyone has examples of that comment being celebrated by left networks then please post it) condemned it but the right leaning networks were more defensive of Roseanne's comments despite those being about a minority class. One group took a bigger hit there and Fox defended that.

For the record i think all American media is absurd (same with British before anyone brings it up) and that there's barely a left there. Just pointing out the absurd hypocrisy while acknowleddging i no doubt fit into that label with my prior posts.

Agreed with the severe sentences of cases of corruption. Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room is my favourite documentrary mostly because everything about it especially the punishments is so baffling. Using a position of power especially one voted on by the general public for personal gain should be severely punished, not by death since i don't agree with that but life should be the agreed upon sentence. Corrupting power is much worse than say armed robbery (provided there's no casualties which would make it a completely different crime, just thought i should clarify) to me.

Freedom of Speech i agree with there being no laws against it like say Germany does about Holocaust Denial. Freedom of Speech also applies to maginalized groups though so i don't see any issue with them objecting to what they see as offensive since it affects them in real life, if you have a problem with that then you can use your own freedom of speech to object.