Yup.

If I ever entertained the idea of public office my posts on CP alone would end that journey before it ever began.

We all do stupid things when we're young. It's a part of growing up. The problem is when you put that whole journey on the internet it may as well have happened yesterday. It's a point that's nearly impossible to get across to young people today.

There's a difference between an isolated comment/post/tweet and THOUSANDS of jokes about pedophilia. I'm not saying a person's life should be ruined but I think it's reasonable to see why he shouldn't be making children's movies.
[Reply]

So it sounds like Drax and Starlord are going to survive Avengers 4.
[Reply]

This should have been easy from day one. If it's not done on work time, and it's not work related, it's not work's business.

But the left decided that free speech meant anything-but-free speech (and the right had been guilty of it from time to time even before the 'modern' era of this crap, so neither party is completely on the side of the angels with this), so here we are.
[Reply]

These are pedantic questions that do nothing to address the issue of hyper sensitive pussies getting people fired for jokes on the internet. I used different words to prevent redundancy. It's normal. Gunn isn't innocent regarding whipping up hate mobs. I don't feel bad for HIM, I'm just sick of he disgusting hypocrisy and lack of any moral standard on this issue from all sides.

As for why I use retribution, the answer is obvious. It's a more accurate descriptor.

As far as I'm concerned i"m one of the only ****ing people around here who's consistent on this.

Don't fire people for jokes. Who they support politically doesn't alter my values as much as it does the rest. I'm against it. I don't feel bad for gunn as an individual. I just think you guys on both sides are making entertainment boring as **** all to win political points which serve NO ****ING PURPOSE other than self satisfaction.

I don't believe in gerrymandering my values. Never have. I'm a free speech advocate, not a "free speech for me, but not for thee" advocate. This is exactly why I said the worst thing the left can do is punt the issue of free speech to the right, because the right doesn't really value it. It's just a convenience for them now because the left is so openly against it and it's an easy win, but they'll abandon it overnight if that becomes the most beneficial path.
[Reply]

Well THAT was a tad more inflammatory, misguided and self-aggrandizing than I I expected. But you do you.

In the abstract, I agree that people are too sensitive. But I disagree that being sanguine about how Gunn is treated is 'abandoning a priniciple.'

I have the principle that people are too sensitive about a lot of things. But I also acknowledge that these sensitive people wield a lot of power and aren't going anywhere.

More importantly [for me, let me know if you disagree, . . . or even CONSIDERED] in the case of Gunn, this principle of against societal hypersenstivity comes up hard against another principle I have that people who are active in imposing rules must exist in the world they create, even when it doesn't go well for them.

I'm not abandoning the principle of free expression because Gunn is liberal, or because he's a vocal opponent of any particular thing or other that I support. I'm superceding that principle of free expression with the principle of living in the world you create because Gunn has been vocal in the excommunication and dispossession of people IN HIS VERY PROFESSION who say things that offend him EVEN IF THEY'RE JOKING.

I know plenty of entertainers who have said even MORE twisted stuff than Gunn, and I haven't said a thing . . . because they AREN"T HYPOCRITES about offensive speech. They're not leading the charge to create this environment you hate.

I don't know, maybe you're oblivious to how involved Gunn has been in shaming entertainers who go off reservation. Or maybe you know and don't care.

I still fully support free expression. But to make a living as an entertainer/creative is still a privilege. And it's a privilege with a queue of motivated and talented people a mile long right outside the door to replace the discarded. So I'm marginally less passionate about the free expression of an individual who has already been handsomely rewarded and chooses to devote so much of his time and power trying to shove nonconformists out of the boat, . . when that culture comes back and bites them in the ass.

And the purpose isn't simple retribution. As a hypothetical, suppose you and I shared identical levels of passion and devotion to free expression. And further suppose we are similarly outraged at the scandalmongering and shaming that drives people out of creative pursuits.

My hope in holding those who impose these restrictions to the standards they set is that they will one day be less judgmental if people they like [or people they are] suffer a bit from their own stifling environment. This incident with Gunn is an opportunity to alter perspectives.

What is your hope in letting the instigators escape their self-created repercussions? Your own self-satisfied adherence to principle? A MOVIE? What does your approach do to actually move towards societal realization of your precious principles?
[Reply]

And if you need specificity, . . and I can go all night with examples.

The closest to the Gunn situation are, in my estimation Judd Apatow and Michael Ian Black.

Both shame and exile, and both have said some corrosive stuff in their history. But I'm not storming the Bastille over them. In MIB's case, I feel a little sorry for him because, even though he's a smarmy douche, he's also relatively harmless and hasn't garnered the highest accolades and powers that others might have. OTOH, I probably wouldn't shed TOO many tears if I learned either of them lost out on a role or project or two. Not that either are likely to, either.

Another near them is Whedon. Though his problems are more in his misogyny than his depravity of humor.

Somewhat at a remove I'd put the likes of Harmon/Roiland, who have some truly vile stuff that they once generated in the name of humor. They're partially unstable semi-geniuses who have already suffered in their way for their crassness [Harmon has been fired many times from things he's been integral to or even foundational, and Roiland is nowhere near as famous as he should be. But you sense they know how fucked up their mental processes and senses of humor are and, while they are vociferously judgmental in the politcal realm are not exclusionary in the creative realm.
[Reply]

This is a lot of stuff that "sources said," so take it with a grain of salt, but apparently:

1. Gunn may still make $10m from the film because he didn't breach his contract. (The "offense" happened long before the contract was signed.)
2. He may be released from all Disney obligations immediately due to the situation, which means...
3. He could possibly go to another studio pretty much immediately, and a number of them have already called about trying to get him on board. That said...
4. There are also rumors Disney could even have him back again in the future after the dust settles.

It would be kind of hilarious if he gets $10m from Disney to go to DC and actually fix some of their damn awful movies.
[Reply]

When Bryan Singer goes without notice all the above seems shallow.

And as long as people put politics first (you did it so it's fair for me to!) and things like freedom of speech and forgiveness second this will just get worse.

For both sides...
[Reply]

I guess the way I see the 'retaliatory' strikes is as a sort of mutually assured destruction, or at least as a harbinger of it.

Look - I'm not going to try to stay completely neutral here. I absolutely think the progressive left started this shit and they are the most frequent drivers of it. But if the right does nothing but stand idly by and get attacked, the left will never back off it. You can logically, neutrally point out its chilling effect on humor, speech, education - everything all day - they won't care. It's blood in the water for them and the social media mob/affirmation is an aphrodisiac.

The only way the left stops punching here is if enough of them get hit back. If they then realize that this shit has an opportunity to truly scorch the earth and make things unnecessarily uncomfortable for everyone, the fight's just gonna be one-sided; conservatives getting punched in the mouth.

It's not a "you did it so I get to do it" thing - it's a "how 'bout you guys see how this is going to hurt YOU as well so NEITHER of us will do it anymore" kind of thing.

These mobs suck. They suck when they happen to conservative pundits, liberal directors, athletes, professors, whatever. They fucking suck and I want them to stop from ALL sides. But the right trying to sit there and stay above the fray just made them the only folks getting barbecued. If they want this approach to stop, they have to show the other side the possible consequences.

"He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue..."
[Reply]

This is the rationale for a Trump presidency in a nutshell, IMO.
[Reply]

Again, and DJLN goes into more specificity than I do, I'm trying hard to keep it out of politics and in psychology/sociology.

I'm a Skinnerian. It's a psychological perspective more than a political leaning. But I believe that people respond inexorably to punishment and reward.

So the key is to be very specific about what you reward and punish and why.

That's why I don't support censoring or punishing people who have different political views, but I do support punishing people who create punitive social environments they themselves are not living up to.
[Reply]

Not sure that it's simply the rationale, so much as its a concise summation of a segment of his appeal.

It may seem a bit of a chicken/egg thing, I think there is a difference between the electorate saying 'I demand an attack dog' and Trump saying 'I'll be an attack dog' and the electorate responding 'sounds appealing.'
[Reply]

Ok, I'll buy that.
[Reply]

Need to expand on this. I did not purposefully omit Singer. As I said, I can tick off countless examples, but just picked a couple for illustrative purposes.

A couple confounding variables in the Singer matter.

First, for all the depths of depravity whispered about his actions, he's been astounding in his ability to keep a lid on it and marginalization of the accusers. The accuser who recanted was a big deal, taking a lot of heat off. But in time Spacey may prove as big a deal, if he finds himself cornered and in danger, rather than simply ostracized.

He's a ticking time bomb, but there's been an absence of smoke/fire/gun. . . . hard evidence.

Second, separate and apart from the question of whether he is guilty of what is whispered about him, he has kept a low profile far away from the cesspool of judgment. It's probably a self-preservation move. But he's largely content to make movies and fuck teenage boys in his pool.
[Reply]

Disney might reinstate Gunn


EXCLUSIVE: Might there be a glimmer of hope for change of heart in the quick banishment of Guardians of the Galaxy director James Gunn from the Magic Kingdom? Nobody is talking about it, but sources said that back channel conversations are taking place between Marvel Studios and Disney. Sources said the Marvel contingent is trying to persuade Disney to explore a compromise that might bring Gunn back into the fold for Guardians 3, something that clearly would be best for the franchise. There is no clash or strong arming here. I’m told it’s a discussion that comes in the wake of the whole cast declaring their loyalty to Gunn, whose abrupt exit has put a thriving film franchise in a rocky place. One would have to label this 11th hour approach to be a long shot, but the community is talking about it.

https://deadline.com/2018/08/james-g...pt-1202443199/
[Reply]