Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 08-02-2018, 02:57 PM
caligulathegod caligulathegod is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Columbus OH
Posts: 623
So, jokes about pedophilia are never funny?

Captain Oveur: Have you ever been in a plane cockpit before?
Joey: No, sir.
Captain Oveur: Ever seen a grown man naked?

Captain Oveur: Joey, have you ever been in a… in a Turkish Prison?

Captain Oveur: Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?

Captain Oveur: Joey, do you ever.. hang around the gymnasium?

We used to recognize absurdity in this country. Even racism can be skewed through absurdity, but there's a difference between that and using racism to spew hatred.
  #102  
Old 08-02-2018, 08:43 PM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 29,685
James Gunn fired from Guardians of the Galaxy 3

Oh, noes!!!

Who's going to make sure that the wardrobe department "makes it work?"
  #103  
Old 08-02-2018, 08:47 PM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 29,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmkeller View Post
tim314:

Quote:
as is my feeling that the guy who brought these things to light is an absolute a-hole
But how do you feel about him possibly being 100% a dick?
That fits.
  #104  
Old 08-02-2018, 08:48 PM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 29,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by steadicam View Post
Honestly, I have no pity for Mr. Gunn or any respect for Disney. TGoTG franchise is disposable entertainment and the next director will do fine because the movie doesn't need to be good (witness that last two aren't really very good anyway)
WTF, dude?

Any movie with Johnny Karate is AWESOME!
  #105  
Old 08-02-2018, 09:18 PM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 29,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
I've encountered a lot of fans saying the same thing--including fans who were against Scarlet Johanssen being cast in a trans role.
Really?

How did those people feel about the casting of Hillary Swank in Boys Don't Cry, I wonder?
  #106  
Old 08-02-2018, 09:27 PM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 29,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by DKW View Post
Hmmmm.

>SNIP<

Issue 5: Is EVERYONE a goddam idiot here?
And of course, the 900-ton gorilla: If he's truly contrite, why not delete the goddam Tweets? That he didn't find this extremely elementary step necessary, especially after his initial round of apologies in 2012, shows a horrendous lapse of judgement regardless of how serious he was about those stupid pathetic unfunny worthless ridiculous lame "jokes".

>SNIP<
Personally, it wouldn't occur to me that my contrition would be well-demonstrated by sanitizing my history.

I'm not a Twitter user. Is it possible to footnote a years-old tweet with an addendum that references the apology? If so, istm that this would be a good standard practice.
  #107  
Old 08-02-2018, 09:34 PM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 29,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by eunoia View Post
Blowing up on social media again today.

Getting fired from Disney is hardly a death sentence. Tim Burton went on to make Pee-wee's Big Adventure, Beetlejuice, Batman, and Edward Scissorhands, eventually being re-hired by Disney to make a bunch of movies including a metaphorical re-telling of his firing incident and a full-length version of the one he was originally fired for. Pretty much refuted the theory Disney knows its ass from its elbow.
Could I trouble you to be a teensy bit less oracular? Specifically: what did Tim Burton get in trouble for; and what full-length movie was a metaphorical retelling of his firing incident?
  #108  
Old 08-02-2018, 09:35 PM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 29,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
This is the culture right now. Eventually everyone will be fired and so everyone will have to be rehired again. But it is insanity and it really should stop, with laws if necessary.
Should they be the kind of laws that are engendered by hard cases?
  #109  
Old 08-02-2018, 09:44 PM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 29,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arkcon View Post
My question is: Do they care enough to not be in the sequel? As in, someone else will have to be Star-Lord, or Gamora?

If so, then this letter actually means something. One or two of them, would be taking a risk. More than two of them would be forcing the companies' hands. Then again, backlash. Don't want to be known as "uncooperative."
Depends on whether they had already contractually obligated themselves to be in the sequel. If so, I'd look at their willingness to accept the consequences of that as "above and beyond."



Also, it's "Johnny Karate." Who the hell is "Star-Lord?"
  #110  
Old 08-03-2018, 02:04 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 34,414
This lack of nuance is doing no one any favors, in my opinion. One can support some firings while not others. A blanket idea of never firing anyone for information about their past is not a good one, as it can let truly vile people off with no consequences.

What makes Gunn different is that he clearly is not the same person as he was, and the things were just jokes, not actual statements of his beliefs or actual actions that caused harm. Plus he had already apologized for them. And this was before Disney picked him up, so they have no excuse not to have known about this at the time.

It's also particularly galling from Disney, because this is not how they handled Lasseter. They were far more forgiving with him, having him step down from a high position but still stick around to help finish the projects he was involved in. And what he did actually harmed people.

What we need is a conversation on forgiveness in this country. It's important. If someone has made amends, we need to forgive. Treating the person who messed up but fixed things the same as someone who continues to do bad things just encourages people never to try be any better.

That said, we also don't want to leave some really bad actions unpunished. There has to be a balance. A point where we decide what stuff can be forgiven and what it takes for it be forgiven. We need to realize the nuance of these situations.

And not give into the false dichotomy that we must ignore the past or fire everyone. That's what the people who dredged this up on Gunn want to happen. Because then their genuinely awful people won't be punished, either.
  #111  
Old 08-03-2018, 10:12 AM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 5,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
This lack of nuance is doing no one any favors, in my opinion. One can support some firings while not others. A blanket idea of never firing anyone for information about their past is not a good one, as it can let truly vile people off with no consequences.

What makes Gunn different is that he clearly is not the same person as he was, and the things were just jokes, not actual statements of his beliefs or actual actions that caused harm. Plus he had already apologized for them. And this was before Disney picked him up, so they have no excuse not to have known about this at the time.

It's also particularly galling from Disney, because this is not how they handled Lasseter. They were far more forgiving with him, having him step down from a high position but still stick around to help finish the projects he was involved in. And what he did actually harmed people.

What we need is a conversation on forgiveness in this country. It's important. If someone has made amends, we need to forgive. Treating the person who messed up but fixed things the same as someone who continues to do bad things just encourages people never to try be any better.

That said, we also don't want to leave some really bad actions unpunished. There has to be a balance. A point where we decide what stuff can be forgiven and what it takes for it be forgiven. We need to realize the nuance of these situations.

And not give into the false dichotomy that we must ignore the past or fire everyone. That's what the people who dredged this up on Gunn want to happen. Because then their genuinely awful people won't be punished, either.
No one says that the standard should be that no one ever gets fired for information about their past. There is a huge difference between telling offensive jokes and actually doing things that hurt people. That should be obvious. The problem is that some people want to decide whether offensive jokes should be punishable based on who is doing them and people like James Gunn should be let off because he is on the right side
  #112  
Old 08-03-2018, 10:19 AM
wintertime wintertime is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 966
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
What do you think would have happened to a Disney director in the 1950s who said that gay people were fine? How about a black disney director married to a white woman? You know, back in the good 'ol days before modern 'offended' culture took hold.
Let's assume that those people would have been fired in the situations you describe for doing something considered offensive by a portion of the public with certain beliefs popular at that time.

Do your examples intend to convey that firing employees because of behaviour perceived as offensive by people with specific beliefs would have been wrong in the past, and is also wrong in present time? So .. Gunn should not have been fired?

Or do you mean to say that it was wrong back then but nowadays it's the correct course of action?

Or is it always fine to fire employees for behaviour that some people might find offensive?

Or do you argue that only some people or specific beliefs should be taken into account when "offensive behaviour" and its appropriate punishment by non-governmental actors is defined?

If so, whose? And why?

One other point: Your examples don't quite fit with Gunn's situation - he wasn't explicitly political active but made some jokes. And they were done before he signed his contract with Disney. And they had already been made aware of those jokes earlier and hadn't done anything.

You may call those jokes bad or not funny at all, and I'd agree; but Gunn's situation raises serious questions about the kind of action that is appropriate if there is a claim that someone's views or actions are offensive to someone else.

Also, the rules that call an employer into action should be clear, transparent and consistent; as should be their reach.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
The level of speech that offended people in the older times you're idolizing was much less back in the days when just saying that maybe it's no big deal for a black person to use the same water fountain as a white person could get you arrested.
Where did I idolize "older times"? [Hint: You couldn't be farther from the truth] And what do my arguments have to do with racial bigotry?

You seem to be talking to someone else.

Free speech is, of course, an ideal. Even the USA sets limits, though less so than other nations, even other democracies.

Societies limit it further; and oftentimes, we don't even realize how far we have strayed from this ideal because of our preconceptions of what should not be said or may be said without serious repercussions.

Are societies always wrong when they decide to (let someone) silence someone beyond the limits that democratic laws already provide, and punish those who won't comply?

Well, that could be an interesting discussion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
Side note: Calling anti-scientific nonsense 'undisputed science' doesn't make it so.
For example?
  #113  
Old 08-03-2018, 02:54 PM
caligulathegod caligulathegod is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Columbus OH
Posts: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by eunoia View Post
Getting fired from Disney is hardly a death sentence. Tim Burton went on to make Pee-wee's Big Adventure, Beetlejuice, Batman, and Edward Scissorhands, eventually being re-hired by Disney to make a bunch of movies including a metaphorical re-telling of his firing incident and a full-length version of the one he was originally fired for. Pretty much refuted the theory Disney knows its ass from its elbow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
Could I trouble you to be a teensy bit less oracular? Specifically: what did Tim Burton get in trouble for; and what full-length movie was a metaphorical retelling of his firing incident?
I would guess it was about Burton, originally hired as a Disney animator, storyboard artist and concept artist. "Back in 1984 Burton made a 30 minute live action short film about a boy who harnesses the power of science to resurrect his dead dog. Disney, the studio who paid for the film, immediately fired the director for wasting their money on a kid's film that was too scary." He later came back and made a feature length version of that same film, Frankenweenie. I am totally blanking on the metaphorical re-telling film.

It's a false comparison. Burton was an unknown at the time and the world had to catch up to his aesthetic which did not match Disney at the time. The James Gunn incident is more like if they fired Gilbert Gottfried for telling the Aristocrats joke.
  #114  
Old 08-03-2018, 03:04 PM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 29,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by caligulathegod View Post
I would guess it was about Burton, originally hired as a Disney animator, storyboard artist and concept artist. "Back in 1984 Burton made a 30 minute live action short film about a boy who harnesses the power of science to resurrect his dead dog. Disney, the studio who paid for the film, immediately fired the director for wasting their money on a kid's film that was too scary." He later came back and made a feature length version of that same film, Frankenweenie. I am totally blanking on the metaphorical re-telling film.
Ah. Thanks for the explain.

Quote:
It's a false comparison. Burton was an unknown at the time and the world had to catch up to his aesthetic which did not match Disney at the time. The James Gunn incident is more like if they fired Gilbert Gottfried for telling the Aristocrats joke.
My brother bought a new DVD of Aladdin for his son's tenth birthday. We watched it at the party, and Iago the Parrot sounded a LOT like Patton Oswalt...


okay, I made that up...

Last edited by kaylasdad99; 08-03-2018 at 03:05 PM.
  #115  
Old 08-03-2018, 04:27 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 23,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
No one says that the standard should be that no one ever gets fired for information about their past. There is a huge difference between telling offensive jokes and actually doing things that hurt people. That should be obvious. The problem is that some people want to decide whether offensive jokes should be punishable based on who is doing them and people like James Gunn should be let off because he is on the right side
Right. There's just no way that overt politics isn't behind the push to keep Gunn, right? No way! And it was pure politics that got Roseanne booted, right? There's just no way that it happened because people were using their judgement based on the actual events, right? And that different people, with different histories should BE judged differently for different thingS- well, I think we can all see that that's just another partisan dodge, right?

I mean, we know that Gunn was targeted by right wing political activists; it MUST have been the same for Roseanne being targeted by the left, right? THERE'S SIMPLY NO OTHER EXPLANATION, RIGHT?


Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 08-03-2018 at 04:28 PM.
  #116  
Old 08-03-2018, 06:32 PM
eunoia eunoia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Outside Poker Flat
Posts: 1,604
Even Café Society is so poisoned with partisan politics that nobody has yet mentioned Chekhov.
  #117  
Old 08-03-2018, 09:25 PM
Corry El Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
Right. There's just no way that overt politics isn't behind the push to keep Gunn, right? No way! And it was pure politics that got Roseanne booted, right? There's just no way that it happened because people were using their judgement based on the actual events, right? And that different people, with different histories should BE judged differently for different thingS- well, I think we can all see that that's just another partisan dodge, right?

I mean, we know that Gunn was targeted by right wing political activists; it MUST have been the same for Roseanne being targeted by the left, right? THERE'S SIMPLY NO OTHER EXPLANATION, RIGHT?

It's not that it MUST be true, but it's just that a lot of people (including myself) look at it and use *their* judgement to say, 'yeah a lot of this seems to depend which side the offender and denouncer happen to be on'. Maybe those people are wrong and it's really not about politics but more of a coincidence. How could it ever be proved? Nor does that mean that I think *everyone* who reaches opposite conclusions does it *just* because of politics. But seems obvious to me reading a cross section of comments that politics has a good deal to do with it. One particularly clear point is how it sticks in some craws how a 'right wing' internet person is the one digging up Gunn's tweets.

And obviously, the relentless sequential left/right jib/jab about 'hypocrisy' almost never involves cases which are exactly alike. There's a strong tendency, caused by short attention spans, to focus on the most recent jib or jab, not even look back a few to find one that's a little closer. For example, obviously, in the Barr case she put her stupid joke out there entirely herself, rather than it being something written awhile ago somebody else called attention to. I can see that difference. Still, I don't buy that it doesn't have a lot to do with politics. In my *opinion* it obviously does.
  #118  
Old 08-03-2018, 09:52 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 23,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corry El View Post
It's not that it MUST be true, but it's just that a lot of people (including myself) look at it and use *their* judgement to say, 'yeah a lot of this seems to depend which side the offender and denouncer happen to be on'. Maybe those people are wrong and it's really not about politics but more of a coincidence. How could it ever be proved? Nor does that mean that I think *everyone* who reaches opposite conclusions does it *just* because of politics. But seems obvious to me reading a cross section of comments that politics has a good deal to do with it. One particularly clear point is how it sticks in some craws how a 'right wing' internet person is the one digging up Gunn's tweets.

And obviously, the relentless sequential left/right jib/jab about 'hypocrisy' almost never involves cases which are exactly alike. There's a strong tendency, caused by short attention spans, to focus on the most recent jib or jab, not even look back a few to find one that's a little closer. For example, obviously, in the Barr case she put her stupid joke out there entirely herself, rather than it being something written awhile ago somebody else called attention to. I can see that difference. Still, I don't buy that it doesn't have a lot to do with politics. In my *opinion* it obviously does.
James Gunn's situation is unquestionably because of a politically motivated campaign to cause exactly this situation.

Roseanne Barr's situation, to be politically motivated, would require that her opponents caused her to tweet, somehow, and/or they then drew attention to it for political reasons. The first possibility is ridiculous and the second would require that no one actually cared about a targetted direct racist comment about a non-celebrity and that they were using the racism as a cover for hurting Donald Trump.

And somehow that second possibility doesn't sound ridiculous to some people.

It's fucking ridiculous.
  #119  
Old 08-05-2018, 02:38 AM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,359
It's all ridiculous. Companies shouldn't fire for tweets. Period. Enough already.
  #120  
Old 08-05-2018, 04:00 PM
cmkeller's Avatar
cmkeller cmkeller is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 13,007
Snowboarder Bo:

Quote:
Roseanne Barr's situation, to be politically motivated, would require that her opponents caused her to tweet, somehow
Why, did some other party cause James Gunn to make offensive tweets?
  #121  
Old 08-05-2018, 08:12 PM
Corry El Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
James Gunn's situation is unquestionably because of a politically motivated campaign to cause exactly this situation.

Roseanne Barr's situation, to be politically motivated, would require that her opponents caused her to tweet, somehow, and/or they then drew attention to it for political reasons. The first possibility is ridiculous and the second would require that no one actually cared about a targetted direct racist comment about a non-celebrity and that they were using the racism as a cover for hurting Donald Trump.

And somehow that second possibility doesn't sound ridiculous to some people.

It's fucking ridiculous.
Like I specifically said and is obvious, somebody called attention to past Gunn tweets to get at Gunn. Whereas Barr's tweet gained attention in real time. Yes, that's different. But no I don't believe the same people saying it's 'fucking ridiculous' anyone is making an issue of Gunn's tweets now would think it was 'fucking ridiculous' if people made an issue of old tweets by somebody on the 'right wing' side of the politico-cultural divide.

We can go around and around on that, if you really think a lot of the reaction is not motivated by politics, OK that's what you think. I think it's 'fucking obvious' the reactions do have to do with politics, or the tribal divide that's now beyond 'politics' in the sense of something that's separate from everyday life.

And that's IMHO only further illustrated by your response, which seems to assume the only issue is how attention was drawn to the statements, but that's simply not the only issue. The basic issue is how people evaluate the statements, not how they came to know about them, especially not if they were public to begin with. And, what kind of slack they are willing to cut people for saying the statements were a joke, ironic, etc. That's illustrated again in the next in the series, l'affaire Jeong. Sympathy for the inappropriate tweeter, or none, is all about the societal divide, for a lot of people.
  #122  
Old 08-05-2018, 09:02 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 23,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmkeller View Post
Snowboarder Bo:



Why, did some other party cause James Gunn to make offensive tweets?
Since you left off the end of the sentence starting with the word "and", my opinion is that your post deliberately takes my post out of context and as such isn't really worthy of a response, except to point out why it isn't worthy of a response.
  #123  
Old 08-05-2018, 09:07 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 23,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corry El View Post
Like I specifically said and is obvious, somebody called attention to past Gunn tweets to get at Gunn. Whereas Barr's tweet gained attention in real time. Yes, that's different. But no I don't believe the same people saying it's 'fucking ridiculous' anyone is making an issue of Gunn's tweets now would think it was 'fucking ridiculous' if people made an issue of old tweets by somebody on the 'right wing' side of the politico-cultural divide.

We can go around and around on that, if you really think a lot of the reaction is not motivated by politics, OK that's what you think. I think it's 'fucking obvious' the reactions do have to do with politics, or the tribal divide that's now beyond 'politics' in the sense of something that's separate from everyday life.

And that's IMHO only further illustrated by your response, which seems to assume the only issue is how attention was drawn to the statements, but that's simply not the only issue. The basic issue is how people evaluate the statements, not how they came to know about them, especially not if they were public to begin with. And, what kind of slack they are willing to cut people for saying the statements were a joke, ironic, etc. That's illustrated again in the next in the series, l'affaire Jeong. Sympathy for the inappropriate tweeter, or none, is all about the societal divide, for a lot of people.
As I indicated previously (I thought), IMO your basic premise is flawed and is not supportable by actual observable facts. Your premise seeks to retcon what happened with both of these situations to draw parallels that do not exist in fact in order to support a conclusion you desire: that somehow this is indicative of hypocrisy on one side. It isn't.

By the way, your argument seems to concede that being against racism is strictly a Democratic or Left thing.

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 08-05-2018 at 09:08 PM.
  #124  
Old 08-05-2018, 11:00 PM
cmkeller's Avatar
cmkeller cmkeller is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 13,007
Snowboarder Bo:

Quote:
Since you left off the end of the sentence starting with the word "and", my opinion is that your post deliberately takes my post out of context and as such isn't really worthy of a response, except to point out why it isn't worthy of a response.
My apologies, I overlooked that your "and" was in fact an "and/or". Had not intentionally taken it out of context.
  #125  
Old 08-06-2018, 02:28 AM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan Alessan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 23,184
I think the bottom line is, telling racist jokes means you're probably a racist, but telling pedophile jokes doesn't mean you're probably a pedophile. The reason, I think, is that racism has always been considered a legitimate point of view by a significant portion of society, which means that telling a racist joke can be seen as advocating for it. Pedophilia, on the other hand, hasn't been accepted by society at large for a couple of thousand years, so the immediate assumption is that the person joking about it is doing so for shock purposes, and not because he believes in what he's saying.
  #126  
Old 08-06-2018, 03:08 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 23,066
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
I think the bottom line is, telling racist jokes means you're probably a racist, but telling pedophile jokes doesn't mean you're probably a pedophile. The reason, I think, is that racism has always been considered a legitimate point of view by a significant portion of society, which means that telling a racist joke can be seen as advocating for it. Pedophilia, on the other hand, hasn't been accepted by society at large for a couple of thousand years, so the immediate assumption is that the person joking about it is doing so for shock purposes, and not because he believes in what he's saying.
That's a good observation.
  #127  
Old 08-06-2018, 11:18 AM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 5,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
James Gunn's situation is unquestionably because of a politically motivated campaign to cause exactly this situation.

Roseanne Barr's situation, to be politically motivated, would require that her opponents caused her to tweet, somehow, and/or they then drew attention to it for political reasons. The first possibility is ridiculous and the second would require that no one actually cared about a targetted direct racist comment about a non-celebrity and that they were using the racism as a cover for hurting Donald Trump.

And somehow that second possibility doesn't sound ridiculous to some people.

It's fucking ridiculous.
This is just changing the subject. It doesn't matter what the motives of the people who publicized the tweets are. The tweets are either offensive or not, there is no category of not offensive because of the motivations of other people.
  #128  
Old 08-06-2018, 12:07 PM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan Alessan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 23,184
No, what matters is what the tweets say about the people who tweeted them. Gunn's tweets say that has an occasionally tasteless sense of humor and poor impulse control; Barr's tweets say that she's a racist. That's all.
  #129  
Old 08-06-2018, 12:21 PM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan Alessan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 23,184
Show of hands:

Who here thinks James Gunn is actually a pedophile?

Who here thinks Rosanne Barr is actually a racist?
  #130  
Old 08-07-2018, 01:52 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 23,066
No, and yes.
  #131  
Old 08-07-2018, 06:45 AM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
Show of hands:

Who here thinks James Gunn is actually a pedophile?

Who here thinks Rosanne Barr is actually a racist?
What does James Gunn think about the Polanski case? The issue isn't just "Is James Gunn a pedophile" so much as "Does James Gunn think pedophilia is not something to be taken seriously?" We know Whoopi Goldberg doesn't take it seriously, and she still has her job.

As for Roseanne, there's racism and then there's racism. Has Roseanne ever been accused of mistreating minorities who worked for her or not wanting to hire them? We need to get past this "saying naughty things about people of color makes you a racist". IT makes perfect sense to me that if you make racist jokes you aren't necessarily a racist just as if you make pedophilia jokes you aren't necessarily a pedophile.
  #132  
Old 08-07-2018, 07:25 AM
HowSoonIsThen HowSoonIsThen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
I think the bottom line is, telling racist jokes means you're probably a racist, but telling pedophile jokes doesn't mean you're probably a pedophile. The reason, I think, is that racism has always been considered a legitimate point of view by a significant portion of society, which means that telling a racist joke can be seen as advocating for it. Pedophilia, on the other hand, hasn't been accepted by society at large for a couple of thousand years, so the immediate assumption is that the person joking about it is doing so for shock purposes, and not because he believes in what he's saying.
This is an underrated point.

Racist jokes are racist. Rape jokes, however offensive, aren't rape.
  #133  
Old 08-07-2018, 09:37 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 23,066
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
We need to get past this "saying naughty things about people of color makes you a racist".
How about "No"?
  #134  
Old 08-07-2018, 09:44 AM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,359
Are you making an exception for standup comedy here? Because that'll mean a lot of comics losing their livelihood.
  #135  
Old 08-07-2018, 10:00 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 23,066
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Are you making an exception for standup comedy here? Because that'll mean a lot of comics losing their livelihood.
I'll make an exception for anyone who is joking about their own ethnicity. That's it.
  #136  
Old 08-07-2018, 10:55 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,902
Wow, Robin Williams was racist. Glad I didn't know then!
  #137  
Old 08-07-2018, 10:57 AM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 5,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
Show of hands:

Who here thinks James Gunn is actually a pedophile?

Who here thinks Rosanne Barr is actually a racist?
Based on my extensive knowledge of both of them, I would say "No idea".
  #138  
Old 08-07-2018, 10:59 AM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 5,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
I'll make an exception for anyone who is joking about their own ethnicity. That's it.
Is this just your opinion or is it an official pronouncement of the joke police?
  #139  
Old 08-07-2018, 11:35 AM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan Alessan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 23,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Wow, Robin Williams was racist. Glad I didn't know then!
Everyone has always been racist to some degree. These days, we expect people to at least try not to be.
  #140  
Old 08-07-2018, 11:39 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
Everyone has always been racist to some degree. These days, we expect people to at least try not to be.
Perhaps, but I'm not the one who thinks every comedian that ever told a racial joke is a racist.
  #141  
Old 08-07-2018, 12:06 PM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,359
Most comedians that have actually made money had racial jokes about other races as part of their repertoire. I've seen white comedians tell jokes about black people on BET and had the audience in stitches. L
  #142  
Old 08-07-2018, 02:00 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 23,066
Well, if that's how it's always been, that's OK, then...
  #143  
Old 08-07-2018, 05:13 PM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,359
Whether or not it's okay is up to the people who buy tickets to their shows, buy their albums, watch their TV shows and movies. See, that's something a lot of liberals have failed to understand about how calling for economic sanctions against "bad people" works. You're asking the public to punish speech you don't like, but since we are talking about the public here, it's a democratized process. And if the public isn't only offended by racism, and maybe even more offended by pedophilia jokes, or lack of patriotism, or wishing bad things to happen to your political opponents, then that's what gets punished. And even on racism, the public doesn't like anti-white racism anymore than any other kind. But liberals seem to think that kind of racism is okay, as if they get to choose who is allowed in polite society and who isn't. That conceit needs to go away, and seeing their own go down seems to be helping with that.
  #144  
Old 08-08-2018, 12:33 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 23,066
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Whether or not it's okay is up to the people who buy tickets to their shows, buy their albums, watch their TV shows and movies.
Gee, in 2005 you could have made exactly the same argument for a Prussian Blue show...
  #145  
Old 08-08-2018, 10:31 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 34,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
No one says that the standard should be that no one ever gets fired for information about their past. There is a huge difference between telling offensive jokes and actually doing things that hurt people. That should be obvious. The problem is that some people want to decide whether offensive jokes should be punishable based on who is doing them and people like James Gunn should be let off because he is on the right side
No, no one has stated that position. I never said they did. What I did was use it as an example of where a lack of nuance takes us. It is the trend I am seeing. People are ignoring whether something was actually harmful or not, and arguing that either everyone should be punished in some zero tolerance way, or no one should be.

You actually start out well, describing the difference between James Gunn's firing and the firing of these other people. It was, indeed, just a joke from his past. The joke did not actually cause anyone any harm. It wasn't racist or sexist or any other form of bigotry, and, in context, did not promote pedophilia.

To add to this, he also apologized at the time. And Disney hired him, even knowing what he had said. He has not said anything new to agree with that. Instead, some political enemies went after him and brought up a past situation that had already been dealt with. To use an old stereotype, it's like when the "nagging wife" would bring up everything you've ever done wrong. I don't agree that stereotype is of women, but it is still a completely illegitimate way of arguing. Once something is dealt with, it is over.

What conservatives tend to omit is that racism is not harmless. Racism causes harm. Same with sexism. Same with harassment. Just because it is expressed in speech does not mean that is it harmless.

No one has argued that James Gunn should be accepted because he's on "the right side." If he was an asshole who refused to apologize and said something about believing that pedophilia was okay, then it would not matter one bit whether he was on the left or the right. We liberals have shown this repeated, as we have no problem jettisoning our own if they are bad.

The examples people bring up of conservatives who lost their job are Roseanne Barr, who lost her job because of a long term pattern of racism, to the point that people didn't believe her apologies, and Milo Yiannopoulos, who lost his job due to his claims that pederasty was okay, and wouldn't repudiate them, all the while being a garbage human being to everyone.

None of these are like the James Gunn situation. They weren't old tweets that made obviously absurd jokes that they had already apologized for and proven that they no longer support them.

The actual conversation we need to have is one around when forgiveness is okay and when it is not, rather than this black-and-white thinking that conflates these three people into the same situation.
  #146  
Old 08-08-2018, 10:45 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 34,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Whether or not it's okay is up to the people who buy tickets to their shows, buy their albums, watch their TV shows and movies. See, that's something a lot of liberals have failed to understand about how calling for economic sanctions against "bad people" works. You're asking the public to punish speech you don't like, but since we are talking about the public here, it's a democratized process. And if the public isn't only offended by racism, and maybe even more offended by pedophilia jokes, or lack of patriotism, or wishing bad things to happen to your political opponents, then that's what gets punished. And even on racism, the public doesn't like anti-white racism anymore than any other kind. But liberals seem to think that kind of racism is okay, as if they get to choose who is allowed in polite society and who isn't. That conceit needs to go away, and seeing their own go down seems to be helping with that.
That problem with this is that it doesn't match the situation we actually have.

No one involved was offended by pedophilia jokes. This was an attack by the alt-right. You know, those for whom 4chan is too tame. They have no fucking problems whatsoever with pedophilia jokes. Hell, actual child porn happens on 8chan.

The idea was just to go after liberals and find whatever they had in their past and create performative outrage about the situation. And then, before Disney even had a chance to see what the rest of the public thought, they fired Gunn.

If they'd have waited, they'd see the consensus that what Gunn did was not a valid reason to fire him. The public is almost entirely on his side. His audience supports him.

So what you are describing is not something that actually happened. Maybe there is a further discussion about that topic, but it doesn't apply to this situation.

I would gladly debate that topic in, say, GD. I have both agreements and disagreements.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:13 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017