Poll of the Day > If Disney HADN'T fired James Gunn.....would anyone have cared?

(+) Yeah! (+)

If Disney hadn't fired James Gunn (the director of the Guardians of the Galaxy movies) do you think people would have liked Disney any less?

Do you honestly think people would have bought their merchandise less or watched their movies/tv shows less?

I'm honestly trying to understand modern society, because a lot of these business practices don't make any logical sense to me.

[quick summary of the situation]

So, for those of you that don't know, James Gunn was a bit of a weirdo when he was starting out in Hollywood. He wasn't quite into directing yet, and he was just trying to be a writer, producer, or comedian anyway he could. He was trying to be anything, really. And he wasn't finding much success either. Almost a decade ago, he started dabbling in the dark humor market for shock-and-awe because it tended to get people's attention. Nothing we haven't already seen from comedians like Anthony Jeselnik, Daniel Tosh, Dane Cook, George Carlin, etc. Saying disgusting, sarcastic stuff for attention. Because tame humor was boring. In the social media world we all live in now....you can't just make a tasteful joke and be heard. You NEED to make it controversial in order to go viral. So he said some things. Apologized for them. Disney was even aware of these things when they hired him to direct Guardians of the Galaxy. But recently, some idiot journalist dug through his old posts and made them all headlines again. Clearly in the attempt to ruin his career. And Disney needed to save face....so they fired him.

What I'm trying to understand....is why Disney thought that by keeping him hired....would somehow be detrimental to the company.

I've been seeing this kinda shit a lot lately. Some guy works at Wal-Mart, and maybe makes some kind of abortion joke on Facebook. Wal-Mart immediately fires the guy, because "His values do not reflect those of the company."

Ummm.....who thought they did? I don't think anyone alive would have thought Wal-Mart SUPPORTS abortion just because you decided to keep him employed.

Are there honestly people out there that can't make that distinction? Are you or anyone you know like that?
---

Just the alt right trolls that went after him
---

Mead posted...

Just the alt right trolls that went after him

Wasn't it literally just the ONE journalist though? Mike Cernovich.
---

GreenKnight127 posted...

Mike Cernovich.

With a name like that, how could he not be a dick?
---

Mead posted...

Just the alt right trolls that went after him

yeah, only go after the republicans, let democrats say whatever they want
---

Krazy_Kirby posted...

Mead posted...

Just the alt right trolls that went after him

yeah, only go after the republicans, let democrats say whatever they want

---

Those that screech the loudest usually get what they want.

dedbus posted...

Those that screech the loudest usually get what they want.

The twitter outrage over his firing has been way louder than what got Disney to terminate him
---

Mead posted...

dedbus posted...

Those that screech the loudest usually get what they want.

The twitter outrage over his firing has been way louder than what got Disney to terminate him

Disney considers their brand more important than their films. They won't go back because they don't want to admit to having made a mistake.
---

Mead posted...

dedbus posted...

Those that screech the loudest usually get what they want.

The twitter outrage over his firing has been way louder than what got Disney to terminate him

Exactly. Which is what has me the most confused.

I don't think I've seen a single person in FAVOR of James Gunn's firing.

So why would Disney need to be so stubborn about it?

Nobody cared what James Gunn said. So firing him was 100% pointless. It didn't impact Disney's success or "image" in any way, shape, or form.

So rehiring him should equally be a non-issue. It's not like it would damage Disney for "admitting they made a mistake". People would probably just be happy Disney rehired him.

Seriously, none of it makes sense. Nobody is losing anything except James Gunn here. Disney has nothing to lose. Nobody is associating James Gunn's ancient Tweets with the values of the company.

Why must corporations be so stubborn and obtuse?
---

GreenKnight127 posted...

Nobody cared what James Gunn said. So firing him was 100% pointless. It didn't impact Disney's success or "image" in any way, shape, or form.

A lot of people care what James Gunn said, myself included. His tweets were disgusting and inexcusable.

That being said, it was nearly a decade ago, he's since apologized, and importantly, he's stopped making those kinds of tweets. It's not that his tweets weren't horrible, but allowing people to change is an important part of social justice. Getting people to change for the better is a big part of why we believe in social justice. Everyone has done bad things in their life. Most of us are lucky enough that no one's interested in digging up dirt on us, though.

(Incidentally, being part of the sjw community, I can promise there are some people who believe firing James Gunn was right, and that people cannot ever change. They are among the minority of sjws, but they do exist.)
---

A lot of people care what James Gunn said, myself included. His tweets were disgusting and inexcusable.

A lot more arent overly sensitive and never really cared too much.

The entire basis of the jokes is that pedophilia is disgusting and shocking. A lot of the offended people seem to willfully be under the impression that somehow his jokes condone the act.
---

Mead posted...

Just the alt right trolls that went after him

They weren't going after him, they were going after Disney, since Disney (as demonstrated with the firing), likes putting on a show about how extremely liberal they are.

They were trying to call out Disney for being a hypocrite.

Given, the fact the Disney loves to put on a show about how liberal they are is true, and is just that, a show, they believe it will make them more money. They don't actually care about any liberal causes.

They are the ultimate representation of the "evil rich" message in the pointless side plot in The Last Jedi, they don't actually support anyone's causes, they just play all sides for increased profit for themselves. You have to be an idiot to believe Disney actually hates capitalism.
---

Mead posted...

A lot more arent overly sensitive and never really cared too much.

You need to spend more time offline if you think there aren't that many people who think pedophilia jokes are wrong. I assure you it is not an sjw-only thing.
---

Golden Road posted...

GreenKnight127 posted...

Nobody cared what James Gunn said. So firing him was 100% pointless. It didn't impact Disney's success or "image" in any way, shape, or form.

A lot of people care what James Gunn said, myself included. His tweets were disgusting and inexcusable.

"Oh no, tweets!"

God forbid someone blows on you lmao
---

Krow_Incarnate posted...

Golden Road posted...

A lot of people care what James Gunn said, myself included. His tweets were disgusting and inexcusable.

"Oh no, tweets!"

God forbid someone blows on you lmao

I think some of you need to read past this first line of my post -_-

Short version: Disney was wrong to fire James Gunn.
---

Golden Road posted...

Mead posted...

A lot more arent overly sensitive and never really cared too much.

You need to spend more time offline if you think there aren't that many people who think pedophilia jokes are wrong. I assure you it is not an sjw-only thing.

You folks should steer clear of comedy clubs or youre bound to have a heart attack
---

lots of ppl probably would have cared, even if only to strike against the 'free speech for me but not for thee' mantra that libs love

Mead posted...

You folks should steer clear of comedy clubs or youre bound to have a heart attack

He could probably go to West Coast comedy clubs, where they tend to overstress political correctness and not offending anyone (because every comedian there is desperately hoping to get their own TV show some day and don't want to rock the boat) to such a degree that most of the "comedy" isn't actually funny.

But yes, he should probably avoid comedy clubs in NYC or Boston like the fucking plague, because everyone in them (even the general staff) will probably say things to him that shatter his mind like a Lovecraftian horror.


---

I pay 0 attention to who directors are.
---

No.
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Mead posted...

You folks should steer clear of comedy clubs or youre bound to have a heart attack

He could probably go to West Coast comedy clubs, where they tend to overstress political correctness and not offending anyone (because every comedian there is desperately hoping to get their own TV show some day and don't want to rock the boat) to such a degree that most of the "comedy" isn't actually funny.

But yes, he should probably avoid comedy clubs in NYC or Boston like the fucking plague, because everyone in them (even the general staff) will probably say things to him that shatter his mind like a Lovecraftian horror.

I think some of you need to get offline more often if you honestly believe no one cares about pedophilic jokes.

Go out in public (places that are not comedy clubs, apparently) and start making pedophilic jokes. See how well that goes for you.
---

GreenKnight127 posted...

If Disney hadn't fired James Gunn (the director of the Guardians of the Galaxy movies) do you think people would have liked Disney any less?

The same could be said for firing Roseanne or any number of other individuals. And Roseanne's case was even stupider because she had a very long, documented history of offensive tweets. At least Disney didn't realize, "Oh, shit, this guy is a pedophile!", going into that relationship and then fire him for that same reason. And, of course, there's the broader issue of how okay people are with actors and directors being objectionable individuals. Clearly there's been some leeway in the past, considering that known pedophilic rapists like Woody Allen and, to a lesser extent, Roman Polanski have continued to enjoy their careers and fame because people like their work.

Mead posted...

dedbus posted...

Those that screech the loudest usually get what they want.

The twitter outrage over his firing has been way louder than what got Disney to terminate him

The Twitter outrage is meaningless compared to the real-world outrage that would follow if Disney brought back a known pedophile to work on films to work on films with a large child following.
---

Joking about being a pedophile is a nono but being an actual racist is a okay.
---

Zeus posted...

The Twitter outrage is meaningless compared to the real-world outrage that would follow if Disney brought back a known pedophile to work on films to work on films with a large child following.

Good thing there's no actual known pedophiles involved in this story, then.


---

Zeus posted...

The Twitter outrage is meaningless compared to the real-world outrage that would follow if Disney brought back a known pedophile to work on films to work on films with a large child following.

Um...you are exaggerating the issue here. Wording it that way makes it sound as if you believe James Gunn is a CONFIRMED AND CONVICTED pedophile. He isn't.

All he did was joke about it on Twitter.

Joking about something doesn't immediately mean that person is condoning it.

I know a frightening amount of dead baby jokes. In fact, in Stephen King's Dark Tower series, they use dead baby jokes to defeat Blaine the Mono. (seriously, it's hilarious).

That doesn't mean Stephen King or I support the murder of babies. It just means we can acknowledge dark humor for dark humor's sake.

We just live in professionally offended outrage culture. Everyone is a politically correct Nazi. And they aren't behaving that way because they are genuinely morally upstanding. They act that way because they are virtue-signalling. And it's pathetic.
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Zeus posted...

The Twitter outrage is meaningless compared to the real-world outrage that would follow if Disney brought back a known pedophile to work on films to work on films with a large child following.

Good thing there's no actual known pedophiles involved in this story, then.

Besides James Gunn.

GreenKnight127 posted...

Um...you are exaggerating the issue here. Wording it that way makes it sound as if you believe James Gunn is a CONFIRMED AND CONVICTED pedophile. He isn't.

lolwut? It's a sexual orientation. People aren't arrested for merely having the orientation -- which he certainly does -- but instead for acting on it, whether it's messing with child porn or assaulting children. And James Gunn is certainly a confirmed pedophile, which you could confirm for yourself if you read some of those tweets.

GreenKnight127 posted...

Joking about something doesn't immediately mean that person is condoning it.

I know a frightening amount of dead baby jokes. In fact, in Stephen King's Dark Tower series, they use dead baby jokes to defeat Blaine the Mono. (seriously, it's hilarious).

That doesn't mean Stephen King or I support the murder of babies. It just means we can acknowledge dark humor for dark humor's sake.

We just live in professionally offended outrage culture. Everyone is a politically correct Nazi. And they aren't behaving that way because they are genuinely morally upstanding. They act that way because they are virtue-signalling. And it's pathetic.

There's a pretty massive difference between dark humor and joking about your sexual predilections. However, if you are actively seeking out dead baby jokes, I'm not sure parents would be comfortable with you looking after their kids.
---

The Twitter outrage is meaningless compared to the real-world outrage that would follow if Disney brought back a known pedophile to work on films to work on films with a large child following.

And who is this known pedophile theyre considering bringing back?

#JustZeusShit
---

Golden Road posted...

A lot of people care what James Gunn said, myself included. His tweets were disgusting and inexcusable.

That being said, it was nearly a decade ago, he's since apologized, and importantly, he's stopped making those kinds of tweets. It's not that his tweets weren't horrible, but allowing people to change is an important part of social justice. Getting people to change for the better is a big part of why we believe in social justice. Everyone has done bad things in their life. Most of us are lucky enough that no one's interested in digging up dirt on us, though.

(Incidentally, being part of the sjw community, I can promise there are some people who believe firing James Gunn was right, and that people cannot ever change. They are among the minority of sjws, but they do exist.)

Nobody should care what SJWs think.
---

Zeus posted...

lolwut? It's a sexual orientation. People aren't arrested for merely having the orientation -- which he certainly does -- but instead for acting on it, whether it's messing with child porn or assaulting children. And James Gunn is certainly a confirmed pedophile, which you could confirm for yourself if you read some of those tweets.

Saying someone is a pedophile because they have joked about pedophilia on Twitter....is like calling someone a rapist because they joked about rape. That's not how it works.

Pedophilia is not merely an orientation. It's a brand given for a disgusting action. That action being that they molested/raped/inappropriately touched a child with sexual intent and/or looked at/took graphic imagery of children. You can't be a pedophile if you've never taken action to make yourself a pedophile. Just as you can't be a murderer unless you've actually murdered someone.

James Gunn never raped/molested/inappropriately touched a child, nor did he look at graphic sexual imagery of children.

Of course, unless you can prove otherwise. Which I know you can't.

So calling him a confirmed pedophile is slanderous and wrong. If you were a journalist you'd be fired for saying that. You'd also be sued.

So yeah.
---

If you joke about something it means you actually did the thing youre joking about

That is just basic physics
---

Revelation34 posted...

Nobody should care what SJWs think.

Maybe you should go out in public and start making pedophilic jokes. You'll probably find out quickly that it's not just sjws who feel those jokes are wrong.
---

Golden Road posted...

Revelation34 posted...

Nobody should care what SJWs think.

Maybe you should go out in public and start making pedophilic jokes. You'll probably find out quickly that it's not just sjws who feel those jokes are wrong.

Cause tweeting something to followers and announcing a joke in public to strangers is totally the same context.

Until this faux outrage the only people who saw these tweets were people who were fans of Gunns style of humor at the time.
---

Zeus posted...

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Good thing there's no actual known pedophiles involved in this story, then.

Besides James Gunn.

No.



Zeus posted...

There's a pretty massive difference between dark humor and joking about your sexual predilections.

I would agree. Fortunately, James Gunn seems to fall pretty clearly into the former of those two categories.



Mead posted...

If you joke about something it means you actually did the thing youre joking about

That is just basic physics

I wish this was true. Because that would mean that I not only have an orbital death platform with a laser ray I can use to pinpoint vaporize people from space, but also possess a bio-engineered plague that I can use to finally erase the human stain.

Oh, and I'd also be part of the Illuminati and be secretly controlling the world, because I've joked about that as well.

Then again, I'd also be a depraved bisexual robot ghost that lures children into the back of a van with Pokemon cards, so I suppose there's always a negative to every positive.



Zeus posted...

However, if you are actively seeking out dead baby jokes, I'm not sure parents would be comfortable with you looking after their kids.

I regularly tell my best friend he should beat his kids or sell them into white slavery whenever they act up, and it doesn't seem to bother him all that much.

Of course, he also makes similar jokes yet I've never felt the need to immediately rush away and call child protective services on him either.


---

Mead posted...

Cause tweeting something to followers and announcing a joke in public to strangers is totally the same context.

Until this faux outrage the only people who saw these tweets were people who were fans of Gunns style of humor at the time.

You know, it's possible to criticize Disney without defending pedophilic tweets. It's not a package deal. You're trying so hard to defend pedophilic jokes that you don't seem to have noticed I'm on James Gunn's side. For a different reason from you (for me, because he's grown as a person, and for you, feeling the jokes weren't bad in the first place), but still, we're both on James Gunn's side.

And of course it's not the same thing, but I never said it was the same. I just said that you will find a lot of people outraged if you joked to strangers in public about pedophilia. Because most people do not find those jokes acceptable, and you seem to be aware of that. It's not just sjws, but many, many people would find those jokes offensive. Because those jokes are offensive.

Or maybe most people are secretly sjws, I dunno' XD
---

You know, it's possible to criticize Disney without defending pedophilic tweets.

Im not even trying to criticize Disney really, I enjoy a lot of the entertainment they make, but I think that comedy is an art form and that anything in life is fair to be represented in art.

A joke about pedophilia is not pedophilia.
---

I wouldn't trust a baby sitter who doesn't know at least three ways to maim a child. For their own safety.
---

Mead posted...

A joke about pedophilia is not pedophilia.

You'd think mister "nazis are not nazis" would be all over this "pedophiles are no pedophiles" thing.
---

Blighboy posted...

I wouldn't trust a baby sitter who doesn't know at least three ways to maim a child. For their own safety.

See? This guy gets it. LOL
---

GreenKnight127 posted...

Mead posted...

Just the alt right trolls that went after him

Wasn't it literally just the ONE journalist though? Mike Cernovich.

And Cernovich himself has tweeted equally bad things which I am too lazy to dig up now, but he still has a job...
---

Golden Road posted...

Because those jokes are offensive.

https://imgur.com/WYdZr48
---

GreenKnight127 posted...

Saying someone is a pedophile because they have joked about pedophilia on Twitter....is like calling someone a rapist because they joked about rape. That's not how it works.

And once again you're conflating an action with an orientation. They're NOT the same thing. Sexual orientation isn't magically determined the moment they have sex, it happens long before that.

Had Gunn acted on it -- and there might be victims out there -- he'd be a sex offender, not just a pedophile.

GreenKnight127 posted...

Pedophilia is not merely an orientation. It's a brand given for a disgusting action. That action being that they molested/raped/inappropriately touched a child with sexual intent and/or looked at/took graphic imagery of children. You can't be a pedophile if you've never taken action to make yourself a pedophile. Just as you can't be a murderer unless you've actually murdered someone.

A person is a pedophile *before* they act on their urges. It's what gives them their urges in the first place. The claim that somebody can't be a pedophile before acting on those urges is directly undermined by people receiving psychiatric treatment to try to cure those same urges. And, once they act on those urges, they're not just a pedo, they're also a sex offender.

GreenKnight127 posted...

James Gunn never raped/molested/inappropriately touched a child, nor did he look at graphic sexual imagery of children.

Of course, unless you can prove otherwise. Which I know you can't.

Doesn't matter, he's still a pedophile. You also be a psychopath before you murder anybody. It's one thing which leads to the other.

GreenKnight127 posted...

So calling him a confirmed pedophile is slanderous and wrong. If you were a journalist you'd be fired for saying that. You'd also be sued.

Uh, if somebody has a lot of tweets discussing a desire to fuck young children next to them, you're probably going to win that libel suit because that's the public perception that they themselves are putting out there.
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

I would agree. Fortunately, James Gunn seems to fall pretty clearly into the former of those two categories.

No, he's squarely in the latter. Squarely, sir. You don't have to defend a reprobate simply because you like his work. You can condemn the man and enjoy his work, mostly because you're not a SJW.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

I regularly tell my best friend he should beat his kids or sell them into white slavery whenever they act up, and it doesn't seem to bother him all that much.

You're suggesting that he do that, not that you want to do that. Start discussing in graphic detail how you want to hurt his kids and see how long he maintains a nonchalant attitude >_>

Blighboy posted...

Mead posted...

A joke about pedophilia is not pedophilia.

You'd think mister "nazis are not nazis" would be all over this "pedophiles are no pedophiles" thing.

Because pedophiles are a historical organization that had mostly died out by the end of WWII? Guess you should tell the justice system to release all of those priests they arrested then!
---

Oh dear hes back to his Nazi defending
---

While I don't like the fact that James Gunn made those tweets in the first place, but at least he apologized and stopped making them and later directed Guardians of the Galaxy, which hardly anyone even knew of before he made them mainstream.

Disney fired James Gunn but one can hope they'll also fire Rian Johnson(Director for Last Jedi) as well to make up for it, am I right? ; )
---

https://www.thewrap.com/mike-cernovich-who-got-james-gunn-fired-over-rape-tweets-has-history-of-rape-tweets/

Probably not the best source, but it does illustrate that Cernovich himself is a hypocritical piece of shit in his own right.

Disney shouldn't really use this guy to calibrate it's moral compass to say the least.
---

Zeus posted...

Uh, if somebody has a lot of tweets discussing a desire to fuck young children next to them, you're probably going to win that libel suit because that's the public perception that they themselves are putting out there.

Nobody would win a suit where somebody is clearly making jokes. There's a big difference between somebody making jokes and actually saying they wish they could do something like that.
---

Zeus posted...

No, he's squarely in the latter. Squarely, sir.

Except, you know, no.



Zeus posted...

You don't have to defend a reprobate simply because you like his work. You can condemn the man and enjoy his work, mostly because you're not a SJW.

I never feel the need to defend people on those grounds, because I'm very much able to separate artists from their art, especially when whatever they're accused of doesn't directly effect me.

For instance, I still enjoy the X-Men movies and The Usual Suspects, but I'd never dispute that Bryan Singer probably has done sexually inappropriate things with underage males (since enough people have come forward to support the idea that it starts to seem plausible). I also wouldn't try to defend Harvey Weinstein, since people have been hinting at his shenanigans for like 20 years at this point, and apparently pretty much everyone who's ever met him openly admits its probably true at this point. But Miramax has still put out a lot of quality content that probably wouldn't have existed without him.

Hell, I'm one of the people who's always said I don't necessarily think people should try to erase Chris Benoit or his matches from history in spite of the fact that he killed his wife and son (or, to a lesser extent, people trying to sterilize Hulk Hogan out of current wrestling because he said racist things, and not in a joking manner).

But I'm also sane and rational enough to assume that someone is capable of joking about something without having to secretly harbor deep-seated pathological urges of their own. Especially since even a basic understanding of human psychology tells us that black humor and morbid humor tends to be something of a defense mechanism - if anything, we're more likely to joke about things that make us uncomfortable or disgusted than we are things that secretly turn us on.

I've commented on this board in the past that I'm so sexually desensitized by the proliferation of porn on the Internet that I'm no longer able to have an erection unless I'm looking at porn of a midget fisting a woman dressed like a nun, but that's never even remotely been true, and I generally say it on the assumption that most people here are intelligent enough to detect the humor/sarcasm.

Though granted, assuming people on the Internet are intelligent is often wishful thinking.



Zeus posted...

You're suggesting that he do that, not that you want to do that. Start discussing in graphic detail how you want to hurt his kids and see how long he maintains a nonchalant attitude >_>

To be fair, I've openly made jokes about beating his kids in front of him (and in front of the kids themselves), yet at no point did he automatically assume I am a bundle of barely-suppressed rage that must constantly try and control my urge to bludgeon his kids with a tire iron.

I've also made jokes in the past that when his daughter grows up and is in high school I'm going to hit on her friends, yet no one has felt the need to keep an eye on me or put me on any lists, because most people are capable of understanding that people can make jokes about things that they don't actually mean, nor is every joke a secret cry for help revealing someone's innermost desires.

Sometimes a joke is just a joke.

And sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.


---

Zeus: "Grab 'em by the pussy" is just locker room talk!

Also Zeus: If you joke about pedophilia, you're a pedophile!

GreenKnight127 posted...

James Gunn never raped/molested/inappropriately touched a child, nor did he look at graphic sexual imagery of children.

Of course, unless you can prove otherwise. Which I know you can't.

Zeus

Doesn't matter, he's still a pedophile.

Um. It does matter. You are calling someone a pedophile without any proof that they are a pedophile, beyond jokes they made on Twitter almost a decade ago.

Joking about something doesn't mean you condone those things. It just means you can joke about them. How/why your mind is incapable of making that distinction is kinda disturbing. You must be a real nutjob, Zeus.

If you think pedophile jokes are bad....does that mean people who make Holocaust jokes actively seek out and murder Jews?

I once saw a meme that was an image of a pile of ashes. The caption was: "Anne Frank family photo."

I chuckled.

I guess that means I murder Jews.

Who knew?! lmao
---