Guardians of the Galaxy James gunn fired!!! - Part 2

[DarthSkywalker]

I'm not really talking about controversial things like somebody making a racist tweet or something like that. Obviously that falls under different guidelines. I'm just saying when they're voicing themself politically or something that maybe you should take it as that as the person expressing their First Amendment right which you have the right to do as well on your social media. The post I was responding to seem to me more talking about actors talking politically on their social media not was more what my response was for. Not for things like those

Makes sense.

I would say though siding with Trump in this day and age does feel different. If an an entertainer comes out supporting Trump, it means more then just a political POV imo. Not that they can't do that. Of course they can. But that doesn't mean others need to be cool with it either.

People have a right to say what they want to on a political issue. So Chris Evans can have whatever political opinion he holds. He is also allowed to say that on his social media. When you're going to his social media to see what he says in a political issue and you're getting angry, that is sort of on you. You have the right to not go to his Twitter page. If you're going to his Twitter page and seeing what he saying politically then you're making a choice to see what he's saying. You have the choice to not go to his Twitter page at all. Chris Evans is Twitter page is his Twitter page and as long as he's not doing anything offensive ( along the lines of racism or something like that, not offensive as in you disagree with him) or illegal with it, he can say whatever he wants. That is a freedom granted to him, to you, to anyone.

This is completely correct. But that isn't different from whether an employer allows it. Look at the NFL situation over the kneeling during the National Anthem or even what happened to those that marched in Charlottesville last year.

 

[TheVileOne]

The problem is that social media and Twitter aren't private.

When Bush was president people complained about government surveillance and privacy, when society pretty much exposed it all themselves.

But it's another reason why social media should get abolished. Because some people have a really gross sense of humor that people aren't going to get like James Gunn and they are better off not broadcasting it on social media that anyone can find. Seriously, ANYONE CAN FIND YOUR TWEETS AND TWITTER ACCOUNT. Why is that a good thing? Someone please explain that to me. I will never believe it's good.

People crucified government for invading their privacy when people practically gave it away. Even Coulson joked about this on Agents of SHIELD. How with social media, people just started "surveilling themselves."

 

[NotNickFury]

But by the same token, for those who do use social media, people do have the option to just not use it. When people sign up for these things, they know what they're getting into, putting everything out there. The good thing? To connect and have a voice virtually in addition to in-person interaction. You can't gauge how people will react when you put anything out there- you just have to bite the bullet and go for it, damn the consequences.

And in Gunn's case, well, he certainly realizes those consequences now. But it's also about how mindsets have shifted. Maybe around the time of Guardians 1's release, this may not have been a big deal, but it is now. Though I imagine those actors who don't use social media are probably glad when controversy like this arises.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Makes sense.

I would say though siding with Trump in this day and age does feel different. If an an entertainer comes out supporting Trump, it means more then just a political POV imo. Not that they can't do that. Of course they can. But that doesn't mean others need to be cool with it either.

I am all for constructive debate and disagreement. If you disagree with Chris Evans or someone who comes out and supports Trump, and you wish to engage in a constructive debate, that's great. That is democracy at work (again, so long as it is not crossing certain lines as noted prior). What I am not for is this mentality of "Shut up person X. You're just a lowly _____ and should just get paid." Well, if an actor or athlete is not allowed to have an opinion, why should anyone on here? Most people on here tend to have normal jobs, like cashier, office work, etc. So why can lowly cashier state their opinion, but Chris Evans can't? What makes you better than him? Obviously I am not referencing you here Darth, as you never made that point. This is my question I ask who make comments like this frequently. I am not saying you need to be cool with the opinion's of others. Politics and religion are the easiest topics to make enemies and get people angry. But people need to learn to separate their feelings on these things and appreciate the conflicting opinions of others, or just not frequent the Twitter pages of people you don't like if you cannot have civil disagreement with them. But either way, I cannot support the notion that basically says Big Brother is paying you so you're not allowed to have opinions anymore.

This is completely correct. But that isn't different from whether an employer allows it. Look at the NFL situation over the kneeling during the National Anthem or even what happened to those that marched in Charlottesville last year.

The NFL I think has mishandled the anthem topic, but that is a mine field I don't want to debate in here. But suffice to say, they've handled this issue poorly IMO. But one thing I will argue for the purpose of this debate and how it relates to Chris Evans calling out Trump on Twitter is an NFL field can be considered their workplace. That is where the game is physically played. Twitter is not the NFL's workplace.

 

[TheVileOne]

But by the same token, for those who do use social media, people do have the option to just not use it. When people sign up for these things, they know what they're getting into, putting everything out there. The good thing? To connect and have a voice virtually in addition to in-person interaction. You can't gauge how people will react when you put anything out there- you just have to bite the bullet and go for it, damn the consequences.

And in Gunn's case, well, he certainly realizes those consequences now. But it's also about how mindsets have shifted. Maybe around the time of Guardians 1's release, this may not have been a big deal, but it is now. Though I imagine those actors who don't use social media are probably glad when controversy like this arises.

In 2018, people still don't know what social media is and that their accounts aren't private.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I am all for constructive debate and disagreement. If you disagree with Chris Evans or someone who comes out and supports Trump, and you wish to engage in a constructive debate, that's great. That is democracy at work (again, so long as it is not crossing certain lines as noted prior). What I am not for is this mentality of "Shut up person X. You're just a lowly _____ and should just get paid." Well, if an actor or athlete is not allowed to have an opinion, why should anyone on here? Most people on here tend to have normal jobs, like cashier, office work, etc. So why can lowly cashier state their opinion, but Chris Evans can't? What makes you better than him? Obviously I am not referencing you here Darth, as you never made that point. This is my question I ask who make comments like this frequently. I am not saying you need to be cool with the opinion's of others. Politics and religion are the easiest topics to make enemies and get people angry. But people need to learn to separate their feelings on these things and appreciate the conflicting opinions of others, or just not frequent the Twitter pages of people you don't like if you cannot have civil disagreement with them. But either way, I cannot support the notion that basically says Big Brother is paying you so you're not allowed to have opinions anymore.

The NFL I think has mishandled the anthem topic, but that is a mine field I don't want to debate in here. But suffice to say, they've handled this issue poorly IMO. But one thing I will argue for the purpose of this debate and how it relates to Chris Evans calling out Trump on Twitter is an NFL field can be considered their workplace. That is where the game is physically played. Twitter is not the NFL's workplace.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Everyone. I also don't think anyone needs to separate their feelings on anything. If they don't like someone for whatever reason, that is their right. That is a big peice of being allowed to have an opinion. And that goes for Disney or any other company.

And let me be clear, I agree with Evans. I agree with the NFL players. But there is no such thing as off work time. Those people in Charlottesville were off work. That didn't stop them from being fired.

What makes the NFL players who kneel truly brave imo, is they are doing it in the fact of the fact that the NFL can tell them to stop. That they can be fired. That is what made Colin Kaepernick so important.

 

[Zarex]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Everyone. I also don't think anyone needs to separate their feelings on anything. If they don't like someone for whatever reason, that is their right. That is a big peice of being allowed to have an opinion. And that goes for Disney or any other company.

And let me be clear, I agree with Evans. I agree with the NFL players. But there is no such thing as off work time. Those people in Charlottesville were off work. That didn't stop them from being fired.

What makes the NFL players who brave truly brave imo, is they are doing it in the fact of the fact that the NFL can tell them to stop. That they can be fired. That is what made Colin Kaepernick so important.

But the NFL players are continuing to collect paychecks from racist Trump supporting owners that have shown nothing but contempt for their protests. Wouldn't true bravery (as you have previously defined it) require them to hang up their cleats?

 

[Holiday]

Lol, bravest NFL player in regards to the anthem controversy is Dak Prescott.

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

It's truly sad to me that there is a portion of the population who will roast celebrities or athletes for expressing their views but adulate and elevate a reality TV star who tells easily disprovable lies every single day.

 

[jmc]

The problem is that social media and Twitter aren't private.

When Bush was president people complained about government surveillance and privacy, when society pretty much exposed it all themselves.

But it's another reason why social media should get abolished. Because some people have a really gross sense of humor that people aren't going to get like James Gunn and they are better off not broadcasting it on social media that anyone can find. Seriously, ANYONE CAN FIND YOUR TWEETS AND TWITTER ACCOUNT. Why is that a good thing? Someone please explain that to me. I will never believe it's good.

People crucified government for invading their privacy when people practically gave it away. Even Coulson joked about this on Agents of SHIELD. How with social media, people just started "surveilling themselves."

Neither are forums like this though. The problem is not that social media exists, it's that people aren't using it like it's a public forum. You can't have a public social media account and expect there to be no response to what you're saying, that's being extraordinarily naive. If you want a social media account that doesn't have to deal with that then set it to private, then you can control things more. But you can't have it both ways.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

But the NFL players are continuing to collect paychecks from racist Trump supporting owners that have shown nothing but contempt for their protests. Wouldn't true bravery (as you have previously defined it) require them to hang up their cleats?

They are protesting police brutality and unfair policing when it comes to the black community. That has nothing to do with Trump, who has actually tried to interject himself into the conversation, but nice try though.

 

[Zarex]

They are protesting police brutality and unfair policing when it comes to the black community. That has nothing to do with Trump, who has actually tried to interject himself into the conversation, but nice try though.

Trump supports police brutality and unfair policing when it comes to the black community. It has everything to do with Trump.

The protests were performed by a handful of players at the beginning of last season. The number of players participating took off due to Trump's denouncement of the activity.

Are these athletes, who continue to work for owners that support Trump and his white supremacist policies, hypocrites in the same way you believe Dave Bautista to be?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Trump supports police brutality and unfair policing when it comes to the black community. It has everything to do with Trump.

The protests were performed by a handful of players at the beginning of last season. The number of players participating took off due to Trump's denouncement of the activity.

Are these athletes, who continue to work for owners that support Trump and his white supremacist policies, hypocrites in the same way you believe Dave Bautista to be?

One, this started with Colin Kaepernick in 2016, during the preseason. Before Trump was President. He is no longer in the NFL at 30 because he did it and is suing the league for collusion.

Secondly, they never made the direct argument that working for the equivalent of the NFL owners (who all don't support Trump) would make them sick and they don't want to do it. That was Bautista argument. He made it. Do you have a bunch of NFL players saying that? Do you have a bunch of NFL players associating their owners with Trump and talking about how working for someone they'd associate with Trump would be something they don't want to do? Because Bautista was the one who said he didn't want to work for a company like Disney, and then associated them with Trump as an issue. This leads directly back to Vince McMahon. The players argument with the NFL is simply over the right to protest for their cause, which is separate from working for the NFL or having anything to do with Trump. This is a union dispute.

The NFL players aren't fighting with the NFL over police brutality. They already gained 100m from the NFL for that cause. Their protest has nothing to do with their NFL owners, only their ability to protest does so. The players are fighting to have that right to protest, even if they themselves don't do it. Bautista is upset his buddy got fired and is complaining about the actions of his employer on the internet. If he hates it so much, he can quit anytime.

You don't only make bad faithful arguments, you couldn't take two seconds of research to even understand the NFL protest situation.

 

[Holiday]

Before Kaepernick, a few St Louis players in 2014 protested Michael Brown's death with "hands up don't shoot" (which was based on a lie https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...ting-of-michael-brown/?utm_term=.f7845a4a1b96). Then yeah, Kaepernick began kneeling in 2016 and at some point Trump got involved. That St Louis protest is often mentioned when player protest are brought up. Also, Kap isn't out of the league at 30 for his protest, he is out of the league because he wouldn't take a pay cut.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Everyone. I also don't think anyone needs to separate their feelings on anything. If they don't like someone for whatever reason, that is their right. That is a big peice of being allowed to have an opinion. And that goes for Disney or any other company.

And let me be clear, I agree with Evans. I agree with the NFL players. But there is no such thing as off work time. Those people in Charlottesville were off work. That didn't stop them from being fired.

What makes the NFL players who kneel truly brave imo, is they are doing it in the fact of the fact that the NFL can tell them to stop. That they can be fired. That is what made Colin Kaepernick so important.

This is a notion no doubt companies will back, but I don't. If there is no such thing as off-work time, then I want some due compensation, LOL! But I only get paid to be at work at certain times, so as long as I am a law abiding citizen and not going out of my way to ruin company image by being a bigot or trashing my employer or something like that, then I say rock and just do you. If you are not paying me 24/7, then off-work time exists to me. So if I want to make a political tweet or post, then I am doing it (though I don't tend to engage in those types of discussions a lot, I find my freedom to do so very important).

 

[Zarex]

One, this started with Colin Kaepernick in 2016, during the preseason. Before Trump was President. He is no longer in the NFL at 30 because he did it and is suing the league for collusion.

Secondly, they never made the direct argument that working for the equivalent of the NFL owners (who all don't support Trump) would make them sick and they don't want to do it. That was Bautista argument. He made it. Do you have a bunch of NFL players saying that? Do you have a bunch of NFL players associating their owners with Trump and talking about how working for someone they'd associate with Trump would be something they don't want to do? Because Bautista was the one who said he didn't want to work for a company like Disney, and then associated them with Trump as an issue. This leads directly back to Vince McMahon. The players argument with the NFL is simply over the right to protest for their cause, which is separate from working for the NFL or having anything to do with Trump. This is a union dispute.

The NFL players aren't fighting with the NFL over police brutality. They already gained 100m from the NFL for that cause. Their protest has nothing to do with their NFL owners, only their ability to protest does so. The players are fighting to have that right to protest, even if they themselves don't do it. Bautista is upset his buddy got fired and is complaining about the actions of his employer on the internet. If he hates it so much, he can quit anytime.

You don't only make bad faithful arguments, you couldn't take two seconds of research to even understand the NFL protest situation.

Though the situations involving the NFL protesters and Dave Bautista differ, both parties have shown great courage in standing up against injustice both within and outside their respective organizations. All people of good faith should support these brave athletes as they attempt to affect change while continuing to pursue their careers under very difficult circumstances within these extremely powerful corporations.

 

[NotNickFury]

So on an unrelated note, since James Gunn was meant to be on a Sony panel at Comic-Con, they're still releasing a horror film he's affiliated with later this year. No idea what it is, though Gunn didn't direct it at least. Writing or producing, maybe, but not directing. So there's that at least. I wonder if Gunn's name would be in any of the marketing, like they do in other film trailers with 'From the Producer of [Insert Film].'

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

The NFL players aren't fighting with the NFL over police brutality. They already gained 100m from the NFL for that cause. Their protest has nothing to do with their NFL owners, only their ability to protest does so. The players are fighting to have that right to protest, even if they themselves don't do it. Bautista is upset his buddy got fired and is complaining about the actions of his employer on the internet. If he hates it so much, he can quit anytime.

Where was it said that the NFL players are fighting the NFL over police brutality? Now this is a straw man.

You don't only make bad faithful arguments, you couldn't take two seconds of research to even understand the NFL protest situation.

So you couldn't even take the time to understand his argument but then sling this snarky retort? Pretty condescending if you ask me. Folks can disagree without being disagreeable. We can do better than this.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

This is a notion no doubt companies will back, but I don't. If there is no such thing as off-work time, then I want some due compensation, LOL! But I only get paid to be at work at certain times, so as long as I am a law abiding citizen and not going out of my way to ruin company image by being a bigot or trashing my employer or something like that, then I say rock and just do you. If you are not paying me 24/7, then off-work time exists to me. So if I want to make a political tweet or post, then I am doing it (though I don't tend to engage in those types of discussions a lot, I find my freedom to do so very important).

But that is the thing, who decides what hurts the company's image? Why is being bigot in your off time not okay? Especially when perhaps those people themselves don't consider it bigotry.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Though the situations involving the NFL protesters and Dave Bautista differ, both parties have shown great courage in standing up against injustice both within and outside their respective organizations. All people of good faith should support these brave athletes as they attempt to affect change while continuing to pursue their careers under very difficult circumstances within these extremely powerful corporations.

They differ in the fundamental way that makes Bautista a hypocrite, and them not. They aren't complaining about their employer in a very specific way, which is false, and then talks about how he wants to go back and work for someone who that actually applies to.

Where was it said that the NFL players are fighting the NFL over police brutality? Now this is a straw man.

So you couldn't even take the time to understand his argument but then sling this snarky retort? Pretty condescending if you ask me. Folks can disagree without being disagreeable. We can do better than this.

First off all, have you read what he has written to me over these two threads? You ever complain about his snarky retorts and out right insults? If not, maybe you should understand context.

Two, you don't even understand the argument that was being had. We have been calling out Bautista hypocrisy in his desire to be employed by Vince McMahon, a well know Trump friend and supporter, while complaining that he feels sick about continuing to work for Disney. He has continued this attack and complaints by placing them in line with Trump by saying they are trying to, "MAGA" with firing Gunn. By doing that, he brought his own willingness to go back and work for Vince into the conversation, because he not only actually supports "MAGA" his wife works for the man. The NFL players haven't done that, so to try to say they are hypocrites for still playing in the NFL makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Zarex]

They differ in the fundamental way that makes Bautista a hypocrite, and them not. They aren't complaining about their employer in a very specific way, which is false, and then talks about how he wants to go back and work for someone who that actually applies to.

The specific thing Bautista complained about was Disney kowtowing to cybernazis like your pal Cernovich. Vince hasn't done that, so there is absolutely no hypocrisy in Bautista working for McMahon or any other Trump supporting business owner. I know why you intentionally misinterpreted the MAGA tweet, but it doesn't mean Jack Squat. I doubt you or any of the other morally superior posters would have put their career on the line to protest injustice. He's a hero not a hypocrite.

Two, you don't even understand the argument that was being had. We have been calling out Bautista hypocrisy in his desire to be employed by Vince McMahon, a well know Trump friend and supporter, while complaining that he feels sick about continuing to work for Disney. He has continued this attack and complaints by placing them in line with Trump by saying they are trying to, "MAGA" with firing Gunn. By doing that, he brought his own willingness to go back and work for Vince into the conversation, because he not only actually supports "MAGA" his wife works for the man. The NFL players haven't done that, so to try to say they are hypocrites for still playing in the NFL makes no sense whatsoever.

I didn't call the NFL players hypocrites. I was attempting to suss out your unique interpretation of the word and whether or not you would extend it to anyone who worked for someone with whose politics they disagreed.

 

[Lilbaz]

This is a notion no doubt companies will back, but I don't. If there is no such thing as off-work time, then I want some due compensation, LOL! But I only get paid to be at work at certain times, so as long as I am a law abiding citizen and not going out of my way to ruin company image by being a bigot or trashing my employer or something like that, then I say rock and just do you. If you are not paying me 24/7, then off-work time exists to me. So if I want to make a political tweet or post, then I am doing it (though I don't tend to engage in those types of discussions a lot, I find my freedom to do so very important).

Actors are a bit different though. They get roles not just for their ability but also for their popularity and image. If that is damaged it reduces the amount of roles they can get and the amount of money they can demand.

 

[Spider-Fan]

But that is the thing, who decides what hurts the company's image? Why is being bigot in your off time not okay? Especially when perhaps those people themselves don't consider it bigotry.

We as a society mostly agree being a bigot is unacceptable (those that would disagree are a minority at this point). But, political affiliation is a freedom we are all granted. That is a freedom that should be extended, otherwise we should stop living under this guise that we actually have freedom and just call our society what it is: corporate fascism. In a world where you cannot say anything because a company will just fire for having opinions they don't like, that is what you're endorsing whether you know it or not.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Actors are a bit different though. They get roles not just for their ability but also for their popularity and image. If that is damaged it reduces the amount of roles they can get and the amount of money they can demand.

So you're saying we may as just say that actors are just selling their souls as soon as they sign a contract to be in a movie? I'm sorry, I don't agree with that senitment. I don't support a fascist state ruled by companies that fire people for their personal opinions, and I don't support this notion that being paid to be Captain America means you've effectively sold your soul and your freedom to have political opinions or to state them. Freedom holds no value when you designate who can have it. We used to do that. It was called slavery.

 

[Lilbaz]

So you're saying we may as just say that actors are just selling their souls as soon as they sign a contract to be in a movie? I'm sorry, I don't agree with that senitment. I don't support a fascist state ruled by companies that fire people for their personal opinions, and I don't support this notion that being paid to be Captain America means you've effectively sold your soul and your freedom to have political opinions or to state them. Freedom holds no value when you designate who can have it. We used to do that. It was called slavery.

Wow a little dramatic aren't you? Slavery, facist state, 1984, selling your soul? Lol. This is how it's ever been.

If you go to a job interview you probably wear a suit because you want to portay an image that the company would like, you don't turn up as a total mess stinking of booze because you probably wont the job. That doesn't make your potential employer adolf hitler. They are just looking after the interests of their company which is their job.