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

[Spider-Fan]

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 there job.

There is a difference between what you do when you're on company time or property and what you do on your time. Yes, I don't come to a job interview dressed as a slob, but when I go home I can slob it up all I want. I have that freedom to do so. My employer has no right to tell me I cannot be a complete slob on my own property. The issue here is you think of their Twitter page as company property, and I don't think it does. Which brings me back to my point that actors, though employed by company X are not slaves to company X. Therefore, I can say and support whatever/whoever I want while not on company time.

 

[Lilbaz]

There is a difference between what you do when you're on company time or property and what you do on your time. Yes, I don't come to a job interview dressed as a slob, but when I go home I can slob it up all I want. I have that freedom to do so. My employer has no right to tell me I cannot be a complete slob on my own property. The issue here is you think of their Twitter page as company property, and I don't think it does. Which brings me back to my point that actors, though employed by company X are not slaves to company X. Therefore, I can say and support whatever/whoever I want while not on company time.

As i said big actors are different as they are ambassadors to the films they are making. It is partly why they get paid massive amounts of money because they are in the public eye. I'm not even saying they will get fired but they might miss out on roles if their public image is not what the studio is looking for. They are considered as companies unto themselves.

You keep on using the term slavery which undermines your argument. If you are trying to compare a multi millionaire actor to a slave i think you need to research slavery. They have the freedom to pick what jobs they want that are available. If they don't want massive public scrutiny then take smaller roles. If they want to go into politics they are free to do so, that is not slavery.

 

[Spider-Fan]

As i said big actors are different as they are ambassadors to the films they are making. It is partly why they get paid massive amounts of money because they are in the public eye. I'm not even saying they will get fired but they might miss out on roles if their public image is not what the studio is looking for. They are considered as companies unto themselves.

You keep on using the term slavery which undermines your argument. If you are trying to compare a multi millionaire actor to a slave i think you need to research slavery. They have the freedom to pick what jobs they want that are available. If they don't want massive public scrutiny then take smaller roles. If they want to go into politics they are free to do so, that is not slavery.

You're missing my point. It's not undermining my argument. I am purposefully taking this line of logic to an extreme to show what people are advocating. I am not saying Chris Evans is living a slave life, but the fact is the belief is effectively (from some) he should be surrendering his freedom and rights for the almighty dollar (which is a text book definition of indentured servitude, but I digress). So effectively, you're saying the company owns his right to voice his opinion. If an employer doesn't want to hire him because he posts his opinion, that is the company's right. No one can force you to hire someone. But this notion that he is an actor and should shut up and act is a dismissive attitude that promotes this idea that companies own you. Which I am not sorry to say, no company owns me and the idea people should let a company own them is offensive to me.

Freedom of speech may not mean freedom of consequence, but at that same time, you cannot let companies rule everyone's lives and decide what you can/cannot do at all times. That is how you lose all your freedoms one day without realizing it.

 

[Lilbaz]

You're missing my point. It's not undermining my argument. I am purposefully taking this line of logic to an extreme to show what people are advocating. I am not saying Chris Evans is living a slave life, but the fact is the belief is effectively (from some) he should be surrendering his freedom and rights for the almighty dollar (which is a text book definition of indentured servitude, but I digress). So effectively, you're saying the company owns his right to voice his opinion. If an employer doesn't want to hire him because he posts his opinion, that is the company's right. No one can force you to hire someone. But this notion that he is an actor and should shut up and act is a dismissive attitude that promotes this idea that companies own you. Which I am not sorry to say, no company owns me and the idea people should let a company own them is offensive to me.

Freedom of speech may not mean freedom of consequence, but at that same time, you cannot let companies rule everyone's lives and decide what you can/cannot do at all times. That is how you lose all your freedoms one day without realizing it.

Nobody has told him he should shut up. Just that getting into the political argument may effect his popularity and future roles/money that he gets. I've repeatedly said if he wants to do it fine but it may have consequences and to me is probably not the best idea for his career. If he is happy with that then fine.

Fyi i couldn't care less for american politics and hadn't even read his tweets. Neither will make any difference to my life.

 

[JannTosh]

The kind of attacks and tirades Gunn made on his Twitter are now especially rich considering how many Skeletons he had in his closet. It’s really hard to feel too sorry for him

 

[TheVileOne]

You're missing my point. It's not undermining my argument. I am purposefully taking this line of logic to an extreme to show what people are advocating. I am not saying Chris Evans is living a slave life, but the fact is the belief is effectively (from some) he should be surrendering his freedom and rights for the almighty dollar (which is a text book definition of indentured servitude, but I digress). So effectively, you're saying the company owns his right to voice his opinion. If an employer doesn't want to hire him because he posts his opinion, that is the company's right. No one can force you to hire someone. But this notion that he is an actor and should shut up and act is a dismissive attitude that promotes this idea that companies own you. Which I am not sorry to say, no company owns me and the idea people should let a company own them is offensive to me.

Freedom of speech may not mean freedom of consequence, but at that same time, you cannot let companies rule everyone's lives and decide what you can/cannot do at all times. That is how you lose all your freedoms one day without realizing it.

That still isn't slavery.

 

[jmc]

I highly suggest people check out idubbbz latest youtube video about this, and the nature of people not understanding the structure of jokes.

 

[jr24tw]

That still isn't slavery.

The word seems to have lost all it's meaning when people throw it around like this. Insulting to those who have actually suffered through the real slavery. Maybe Rosanne can make a joke about it so people can get outraged while they themselves made a joke out of the word and it's meaning.

 

[Spider-Fan]

That still isn't slavery.

Once again, my point was missed. I even stated in my own post I was using hyperbole to make a point. So if you're going to reply to me in the future, please read what I am saying.

If this still confuses some:

hy·per·bo·le
h??p?rb?l?/Submit
noun
exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

 

[jr24tw]

Once again, my point was missed. I even stated in my own post I was using hyperbole to make a point. So if you're going to reply to me in the future, please read what I am saying.

If this still confuses some:

hy·per·bo·le
h??p?rb?l?/Submit
noun
exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

Isn't slavery a racially sensitive word though in this day and age and shouldn't be thrown around lightly? It's like comparing a black person with a Planet of the Apes character...that's a big no no or so I've heard. Slavery is also related to black people. I would be careful to throw that word around so carelessly.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Isn't slavery a racially sensitive word though in this day and age and shouldn't be thrown around lightly? It's like comparing a black person with a Planet of the Apes character...that's a big no no or so I've heard. Slavery is also related to black people. I would be careful to throw that word around so carelessly.

Sigh. This whole thread just shows how little people can have any real conversations anymore. I was making a clear, hyperbolic argument. I was intentionally taking the argument to an extreme to highlight a core point about ownership of your life and corporations. Not race baiting. Once again, read my actual post. This is the last time I am replying to anything related to this.

Also, slaves existed in many cultures. Not just one. I don't think Egyptian slaves liked being slaves, either. But again, that is not what this discussion is about. This is about the rights of self-expression in social media.

It sort of funny how this conversation is showing exactly the points I have been making on the whole social media outrage epidemic for weeks. So thank you guys for illustrating my point

I also want to add, remember in IM2 when Tony Stark said he and the suit were one so selling his Iron Man suit to the government was prostitution? That is the same thing I was doing in my argument. Are we going to go into a massive outrage because Tony Stark's comment is offensive to actual prostitutes as well? I doubt it. Once again, my hyperbolic context matters

 

[jr24tw]

It sort of funny how this conversation is showing exactly the points I have been making on the whole social media outrage epidemic for weeks. So thank you guys for illustrating my point

Pointing out hypocrisy isn't the same as making the point for you. If you have problems with what Rosanne said because it's related to racism in the sense of something that was done to Africans in America or Africans in general (comparison of monkeys to African people), then you sure shouldn't throw around the word 'slavery' so lightly. It's insulting to Africans who suffered through slavery to use it for a multi-million dollar, free white man with rights (Chris Evans).


Just following your logic...

 

[Spider-Fan]

Pointing out hypocrisy isn't the same as making the point for you. If you have problems with what Rosanne said because it's related to racism in the sense of something that was done to Africans in America or Africans in general (comparison of monkeys to African people), then you sure shouldn't throw around the word 'slavery' so lightly. It's insulting to Africans who suffered through slavery to use it for a multi-million dollar, free white man with rights (Chris Evans).


Just following your logic...

You're not following my logic. You're making a strawman argument by attempting to utilize what is essentially a sound bite in order to misrepresent my argument on purpose. There is a difference. You're the one trying to make this argument about race in order to feed your narrative and alter the course of what this discussion is actually about. I am not biting.

 

[TheVileOne]

No one has surrendered anything. Social media simply isn't the right platform to tell shocking edgy humor.

 

[JtheDreamer]

There is a difference between what you do when you're on company time or property and what you do on your time. Yes, I don't come to a job interview dressed as a slob, but when I go home I can slob it up all I want. I have that freedom to do so. My employer has no right to tell me I cannot be a complete slob on my own property. The issue here is you think of their Twitter page as company property, and I don't think it does. Which brings me back to my point that actors, though employed by company X are not slaves to company X. Therefore, I can say and support whatever/whoever I want while not on company time.

He could have been at home, in his car, the office, or just about anywhere when Tweeting. Yet fact remains he was putting comments out there for public consumption. That's what happens when submitting posts to Twitter. It's basically the media now.

 

[jr24tw]

You're not following my logic. You're making a strawman argument by attempting to utilize what is essentially a sound bite in order to misrepresent my argument on purpose. There is a difference. You're the one trying to make this argument about race in order to feed your narrative and alter the course of what this discussion is actually about. I am not biting.

You are the one constantly using Chris Evans as an example. And throw the word slavery around and excusing it with hyperbole. I didn't make it about race btw, you mentioned racial tweets in this very thread.


Chris Evans signed up on free social media. He's free to post whatever he wants there so long as he abides by the rules of the social media company. Though I'd bet he could violate said rules and still keep his twitter thanks to his celebrity status, hence he has even more rights than the average person. He is free to advocate, trash, debate etc. whatever he wants on there. And he continues to do so (or so this thread tells me, never visited his twitter). The slavery hyperbole is just nonsense because that's not what's happening. Therefor the word being thrown around so carelessly is no different to me than Rosanne's tweet.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Cool sorry bro

Again, not continuing this discussion. I said all that I will on this already.

 

[Grommers]

There is a difference between what you do when you're on company time or property and what you do on your time. Yes, I don't come to a job interview dressed as a slob, but when I go home I can slob it up all I want. I have that freedom to do so. My employer has no right to tell me I cannot be a complete slob on my own property. The issue here is you think of their Twitter page as company property, and I don't think it does. Which brings me back to my point that actors, though employed by company X are not slaves to company X. Therefore, I can say and support whatever/whoever I want while not on company time.

I thought about this, and I think you make some valid points - but I do think above and beyond a certain threshold for financial gain, you are held much more responsible than say a lower level sound guy for making the same comments.

Partly because you become an inspiration for people to look up too, to be admired, and set a good role model for society.

Now, thats not inherently written in contracts, but we see it in business all around, with a lot of companies taking hits when they make political or get involved in scandals that have very little to do with the company itself.

Now, again, I think EVERYONE should be held to the same accord as opposed to the popular people, but thats just a price too pay to be at the top.

It's also why a lot of people step away from acting/public eye in general, you get scrutinized no matter what. (damned if you do, damned if you dont).

I do believe there is something in there contracts related to there public image iirc, so its hard for me to feel bad about these things.

 

[zeptron]

It's really sad how all of this is due to some internet troll going out of his way to dig up on someone's past because he didn't like his views.

 

[harlequinade]

It's really sad how all of this is due to some internet troll going out of his way to dig up on someone's past because he didn't like his views.

All of this is due to grown up man making dozens of "jokes" about rape.

 

[Prettyricky]

All of this is due to grown up man making dozens of "jokes" about rape.

bingo, again it all falls back on gunn in this scenario and less about Disney choosing to cut ties with him for the obvious reasons.

 

[Travesty]

Well, looks like GotG3 is delayed, and Bautista is still on twitter acting like a moron.

I have a feeling they're going to cancel the movie.

 

[Zarex]

All of this is due to grown up man making dozens of "jokes" about rape.

It wasn't dozens. Not even close. That's another lie that Cernovich, the deblorables and their liberal lap dogs are selling. It was less than 10 over 10 years.

 

[JtheDreamer]

All of this is due to grown up man making dozens of "jokes" about rape.

Rape jokes about CHILDREN nonetheless. That's a scrutiny cocktail.

It kind of makes me ill that people want to try to focus the attention on Alt-Righters instead of the man who conducted himself like that. Imagine if Gunn were the director of the Fantastic Four. I doubt he'd be getting the support from these same people.

 

[harlequinade]

It wasn't dozens. Not even close. That's another lie that Cernovich, the deblorables and their liberal lap dogs are selling. It was less than 10 over 10 years.

even 1 joke about raping children is too many but sure 'deplorables'

Rape jokes about CHILDREN nonetheless. That's a scrutiny cocktail.

It kind of makes me ill that people want to try to focus the attention on Alt-Righters instead of the man who conducted himself like that. Imagine if Gunn were the director of the Fantastic Four. I doubt he'd be getting the support from these same people.

it makes me ill people defend him but that's the world we live in, apparently