|
I am really uncomfortable with this growing idea that someone should go unpunished because the wrong people raised the issue, or that we should ignore X because Y has yet to be punished. Sure, Gunn was comparatively tame next to others in Hollywood, but he was making vile jokes (of which comedians are routinely being lambasted for nowadays, and not without reason) in his mid-forties, contributing to the overall culture that's infested it. Small steps have to come with the big ones.
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2018 08:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 23, 2024 12:47 |
|
|
But then, to me, that raises the issue of - especially in the context of "good faith" - how genuine an online apology actually would be, and where do we draw the line on someone eluding punishment because of it. Just because they didn't get the backlash *then* doesn't mean they should avoid it later because they weren't fired at the time.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2018 09:06
|
|
|
I, Butthole posted:By that same token, no one should work with Eddie Murphy because of material his 80s stand ups, Adam Sandler because of material in his 90s movies, Judd Apatow because of material in his mid-2000s movies, etc. They're indefensible today, but they're super crass versions of jokes that weren't out of place in 2008. Right, but where's the cut off? Do we give Roseanne ten years and suddenly forget everything? What if it had been an alt right member who flagged up her original tweet, would that lessen the outrage about the comments? I'm just irritated because all these accusations about bad faith and not genuinely being offended really muddies the waters. It shouldn't matter who is complaining about these tweets, but rather the content itself.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2018 09:08
|
|
|
I don't buy the idea that someone's accuser being vile invalidates another person's crimes. If we go down that route where do we draw the line? Just because I want Gunn to be held accountable doesn't mean I believe the likes of Mike should go untouched, and I'm pretty disgusted you're trying to draw the parallel there.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2018 09:24
|
|
|
Ultimately, I just don't think that this kind of thing should go without consequences, especially for people in positions of influence within the industry. Yes, ten years on is a bit silly, but at the same time he avoided serious repercussions because of an online apology - something that, to me, isn't particularly spectacular, and being a better person because you no longer joke about raping kids isn't something I feel should put anyone on a pedestal. It's just a messy situation overall, not helped by an intense need to downplay it on the basis of others being worse. That is a really weird route to go down, and I'm hugely uncomfortable with it. Taintrunner posted:Mike Cernovich is not an accuser. He is a rapist and has a history of making poo poo up, falsifying poo poo, and being a white nationalist provocateur Actual Rapist. He was literally in court for it and took a plea deal down to battery with community service. He also is uh outspokenly pro rape. On multiple occasions! Regularly! Mike deserves to be punished. His existence does not invalidate the behaviour of others.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2018 09:46
|
|
|
I, Butthole posted:Also yo this is not about a crime, it's about words. Gunn is not being fired for raping children, he's being fired and targeted because he made lovely jokes about it. That's a huuuuuge distinction. I don't really buy this. For both my sexuality and gender identity I've been the source of a number of vile jokes, belittled for it, and suffered outright abuse. Even without going into the actual, physical aspect of this..."just words" does not diminish their impact.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2018 09:49
|
|
|
Taintrunner posted:Instead, you and others that give him any sense of legitimacy have only enabled, rewarded, and emboldened him to commit further hanus acts of dishonesty and outright lies like he has done to Sam Seder and Chuck Schumer (who is a dirt bag for reasons unrelated to anything Cernovich brought up) and will continue to do so now, with all of Trump Reddit cheering him on. Don't you dare accuse me of supporting a rapist. I'm not discussing this with you any longer.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2018 09:55
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:You haven't been reading posts either, so that should realistically wrap up your time in the thread. Why does taking issue with Gunn's comments, and online commentary in general, mean I'm "jumping into bed" with Mike? Taint has explicitly said I was on his side, purely because I'm against Gunn's comments. In a discussion talking about context and bad faith, painting me as rape apologist is the shittiest, seediest thing you could do.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2018 10:15
|
|
|
Yeah, let me just emphasise here I fully understand why people are leery of firing him (professional blowback, in my opinion, is something that should be enforced for this kind of thing on a regular basis - if only to stymy the awful cultural stuff around it - but outright firing is not the only approach), it's just absolutely infuriating to see people get lumped in with Mike. I didn't even know Mike was the source of this until I was compared to him, and that's just...ugh.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2018 10:27
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:Put simply, what you should be focusing your attention on is that Twitter is allowing the extremist psychopaths you're actually worried about to flourish virtually unchecked on its platform. I'm not supporting Mike, and have said that he deserves to have lost far more than anyone else. However, just because I hate Mike does not mean I will absolve Gunn of his vile, "just words" remarks. I'm also disheartened you're telling me I can't care about what people are saying because there are worse problems - guess what, I hate Twitter! I think it needs a tighter, stronger method of policing. This doesn't mean I can care solely about the company's higher-ups. As I also said, Mike was not the original source for me either. When a member of the alt right speaks up against, say, Roseanne (generally on the basis of her gender and build...) am I free to disregard her flaws and focus solely on the Redditor? Painting it as black and white, Support A Rapist versus Don't Support A Rapist, is misleading and more than a touch disgusting.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2018 10:56
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:it actually does make a huge difference that this was already brought up six years ago and that it’s now being brought up because two guys who defended an actual child predator want to punish a person mocking their emperor daddy. I retroactively discovered Mike was the original source of these tweets. Why does that make me complicit in rape culture, as has been implied several times?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2018 11:00
|
|
|
It is possible to think ill of multiple individuals and organisations, to varying degrees, at the same time. Opposing one does not mean you unconditionally accept the other. I'm tired of repeating this, and I'm sick of you telling me I endorse a culture of sexual assault because of this.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2018 11:40
|
|
|
Conclusions posted:Here's a very good interview with him from 2017 with Buzzfeed where there's a massive deep-dive into his dark humour and history. There's a few rather maudlin quotes about his childhood in school, but there's a very important bit about his Twitter feed and how he's not the same person anymore. Maybe I'm being overly cynical here, but it seems the reason he became a "better person" is because he realised how cushy the Guardians stuff would have been, rather than an innate need to reflect on his past. I'm willing to eat my words on that if he has been genuinely progressive in other areas since, however.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2018 14:56
|
|
|
Ideally, punishments would have happened at the time rather than being dished out later. I don't think anyone saying Gunn was vile has said the situation is anything but messy.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2018 00:22
|
|
|
Judakel posted:Punishments should never have happened. Joking about the rape of children in a public space should have professional repercussions, as far as I'm concerned. It wasn't a one off, it was a recurring thing - imagine if the same remarks were being made about women in the industry. You cannot treat this stuff in a vaccum.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2018 11:20
|
|
|
Why should rape and molestation jokes be allowed on a public platform, though? Beyond the dubious "free speech" qualities, what does acceptance of that material give anyone?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2018 19:51
|
|
|
Is James Gunn a survivor of such abuse, or was he helping someone work through such a thing?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
Len posted:If he was why does he have to go to Twitter and go "hey guys victim of abuse here taking this back"? In that case how do we know he isn't just making vile jokes to get a reaction? I don't understand why people feel the need to bend over backwards in order to tolerate and defend this kind of humour.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
Len posted:Why do you want the torches and pitchforks brought out over terrible humor? People in positions of power and influence should be held to much higher standards than other people, especially when they work in an already toxic culture. I am also not accusing him of molesting anyone - please don't put those words in my mouth - I just want people to realise that spouting those kinds of jokes should have repercussions. "Just words" or "just joking" are not grounds enough to get away with hateful material, especially on a public platform.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2018 20:43
|
|
|
Gun's apology was not for those tweets.Len posted:If they were going to punish it they should have the first time the tweets were brought to their attention. I'm not demanding blood. I am asking why people in this thread are defending jokes about raping children should be acceptable on a public platform, by people in positions of influence. I've already the Gunn situation is messy and a lot of trouble would have been avoided had this occurred before he was hired in the first place. People are ducking my question by implying I'm siding with a rapist, and it's ticking me off.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2018 20:55
|
|
|
henkman posted:Maybe stop siding with a rapist then, idk It is possible to think of Mike as a disgusting, vile person who should be locked up while also believing public platforms should not be used to air jokes about raping children. I am not the only person in this thread who has raised the latter point, but I have several people solely focusing on and referring to me as a supporter of rape culture. That is absolutely disgusting, and does nothing but deflect from what I'm trying to ask.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2018 21:00
|
|
|
Karloff posted:I'm not sure that Gunn was in a position of influence as he is now, his brand then was making shocking edgy films and his twitter reflected that, albeit stupidly and inelegantly. When he started making family films, he stopped, albeit sneaking in the occasional subtle naughty joke into them occasionally. To me anyone who is influencing Hollywood, however minor, has a duty to help control the toxicity within it. Perhaps Gunn did genuinely change, and I'm happy to see evidence of that beyond an interview where he was expressed concern about his job with Disney, but in a wider sense I'm still wondering why people are so eager to defend this material.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2018 21:01
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:No you're actually demanding blood, you think it's good and right for him to be fired for making bad jokes that Disney knew about years ago and that you couldn't even find on the Internet without looking at deleted tweets. In the last three pages you've had this explained to you like 20 times though, so I fully expect you to continue mischaracterizing this as the defense of "toxicity." I have said it is a messy situation and that Disney should have taken action at the time, and I've even stated firing was an excessive measure - however I've also repeatedly asked why there are so many people defending that material being online, and have been called a Nazi rapist because of this. You'll have to forgive me for getting wound up about that.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2018 21:07
|
|
|
The jokes were not "about" child molestation, they were direct statements about doing it. Bust Rodd posted:Why do you think making fewer jokes about taboo, offensive material on a globally available social media platform makes Hollywood less toxic? It sends the message that this is not acceptable behaviour, and reinforces the idea its an awful attitude that shouldn't be used even "ironically". As I asked earlier, imagine if someone began joking about actresses being raped. Small steps have to be taken with the big. Bringing down the likes of Weinstein doesn't have to mean we ignore other smaller, but also culpable contributions to the venom in this industry.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2018 21:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 23, 2024 12:47 |
|
|
Except as explained earlier Mike being the source of my frustration wasn't the case until this thread, where the origin of the tweets came up and people began to call me a Nazi rapist. You're right though, I will step away from this thread. I'm sickened that a group of people will be outraged by "bad faith" arguments, but then consistently accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being a Nazi rapist. Nobody has explained, they've consistently focused on that second part, completely ignoring anyone else who has raised the subject of rape jokes being made. It's disgusting behaviour.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2018 21:18
|
|