James gunn fired!!!

Anyone familiar with Point & Clickbait?

Disney Fires Disney After Discovering Extremely Racist Old Disney Cartoons

 

Heh. Nicely done.

 

There's a couple of lies here - but you know that don't you?

Gunn didn't make hundreds of pedophilia jokes. He made a handful over five years. And some of the yuks in question, such as equating a weak hotel shower to a child's urine stream, are distasteful but hardly sexual.

The "Pubescent Girls Touch Themselves" was a video of a choir singing the pop song "I Touch Myself". A smidge distasteful? Sure! But those of us with a sense of humor clearly saw it for what it was - a gag.

And Gunn goes on rants against and insults only people who deserve it.

But lets change up the situation for the certain types of folks who are struggling with false equivalency. Let's put Gunn and Roseanne in each other's shoes!

After the showing of Infinity War, James Gunn makes a joke on twitter about how he was consulted on the dialogue for the film, but the Russo brothers left out his sex scene between Thor and adolescent Groot. A few members of his cast condemn him and say they are uncomfortable working with him in the future. In this scenario Disney is justified in firing Gunn.

A left wing blogger dredges up some of Ms. Barr's racist and anti-islamic tweets from the past. The cast and crew of the show rally around Roseanne in support and make it clear that the person they work with is not the person who posted that filth. In this scenario Disney is not justified in firing Barr.

 

Funny! But the “Shanghai, Hong Kong, egg foo young / Fortune cookie always wrong," was actually part of "Everybody Wants to be a Cat" in The Aristocats (1970) and not Lady and the Tramp (though that also did have [two] Siamese cats). My Disney nerd coming out

 

But if they were just ‘provocative jokes’ why would you insist Gunn be fired at all? Even if he HAD tweeted those things just a week ago, why do you think he should be so harshly punished for it?

 

The difference is Rosanne was actively under ABCs employ, and being a public figure, whatever she does publicly can reflect on her employer. So since she tweeted what she did, it reflected poorly on ABC. Hence she was fired. The difference here is Gunn's tweets occurred before his employment with Disney, and had he been fired right around when he was hired, then that would have been more understandable. The issue is Disney/Marvel kept Gunn under their employ, he's basically been a model citizen outside of some political debates, and he is being fired for something well after the fact before Disney was his employer. It's 100% different. If this outrage had happened because of something Gunn did recently, then Disney firing him makes sense for the same reason Rosanne was fired. But the situations are not equal.

 

I think it's perfectly reasonable to terminate the contract of an individual based on past indiscretions.

 

I don't understand why people can't see the difference in this.

It's like if I caught driving drunk years ago and was given a ticket. Then I get caught yesterday, so yes, they can take away my license.

Gunn was never even given a warning or a ticket.

 

In this version of the universe, no ex-convict can get a job then. Is that right? I don't think it is.

 

In the actual universe, employers can exercise whatever rights are legally available to them.

 

That is true they can, but I am also free to look down upon those that do that (Such as Disney in this case) as a free thinking individual who has morals.

 

I mean, should Horn fire RDJ for shooting himself full of horse, trespassing in a neighbor's home and falling asleep on his kid's bed? I get it that showing empathy to our flawed fellow humans is out right now, but it's important we retain a tiny smidge of our humanity.

 

The world isn't actually black and white like that and you know it.

But if you want it black and white then try this on for size:

Gunn changed. Roseanne didn't.

Gunn was fired from something - from his past - before employed by Disney. Roseanne was fired for something - in the present - while employed by Disney.

I don't excuse Gunn's tweets. They're disgusting. But I don't believe this situation was handled properly. It is what it is.

 

Because people are not objective anymore. It's all driven by bias based on who "your team" is. Facts don't matter.

 

No he didn't , but in this case, Disney didn't care about doing what was fair or just for Gunn, they did what they thought was in their own best interests, regardless of the fact he had these particular tweets accessible for years.

So in this case, they took his license away because the they didn't want the image of anyone getting anything short of a license suspended for drunk driving whether in the past or today.

What alot of fans can't seem to grasp, not saying you're one of them , is that Disney didn't care if it was fair or not. They did it to protect themselves.

They didn't do this as punishment to Gunn, but to save their own skins because they were worried it would hurt them. In that sense, it was a knee jerk reaction, but it was one based on what they thought was in their self interest as opposed to moral indignation.

Horn's statement was just something to make themselves look high and mighty as opposed to calculating.

 

*gasp!*

 

Oh, I 100% understand this fact. I 100% understand why they let Gunn go. That doesn't make it right, however. Injustice is still injustice, even if there is sound logic behind it.

 

Yeah I kind of agree with this. But I'm not sure it's calculating as much as trying to adhere to a moral code in an ever changing world where it seems morals themselves are disintegrating. I don't want to Disney to stop trying to do this. They're not going to get it right every time.

 

Before Disney fired Roseanne, do you think they could have extended her the courtesy of investigating the matter privately and allowing her a chance to explain herself first?

Or do you think her tweet was so undeniably evil that no explaination or justification would have sufficed.

 

I was sure you understood it. I was addressing those fans who really seem to think Disney dealt out an unfair punishment from some misplaced morality as opposed to understanding it was a cynical move posing as morality.

Whether its right or not is what this debate is really about. Whether its just or not , I don't think there's gonna be agreement on it because everyone has their own moral view of what is just and what is fair.

No question and Injustice is still and injustice regardless of the logical underpinnings, but in this case, people seem to disagree about whether it was an Injustice or not, which is one of the reasons fans are split on it.

 

Which again, I get. But the more I reflect on this, the more I morally disagree with Disney's decision. Which is making me even more sour about the whole ordeal. I know full well money/business and the right thing often don't go hand in hand. But even if this is a decision I can understand logically from an economic point of view, it doesn't change my overall feelings on the matter. I just cannot morally support what happened to James Gunn. Other people may be able to, which is cool. But my moral code conflicts with it, and I feel like I cannot be silent about that.

 

I guess I'm more cynical than you are in the view of Disney. Lol. I think that they certainly want to be seen as being up to the moral standards of today but I think that's because they want to appear accessible and opening to everyone , because they know there's more profit to made by presenting that image.

Disney's isn't exactly clean themselves when you look back at the blatant racism in some other their older animated canon, but even then , they were reflecting a lot of the racism of that time for profit.

They've distanced themselves from that stuff for sure, and I do think its important for them to keep that wholesome image they've had since the depression, but as I've said before, they're pretty cutthroat in business and this is the first time fandom is getting an appreciation for that.

 

I disagree here. I think the lack of FF merchandise/presence in the comics just to stick it to FOX on the movie rights issue and the situation with Huk's sequel are other good examples of Disney not being entirely fan friendly (though the Hulk one is maybe more understandable).

 

If that's how you feel, that's how you feel. Nothing wrong with that, and its nothing to be silent about. You'll get no complaints from me for expressing it.

 

Yeah, but you haven't had this level of outcry and backlash for what Disney had done with those. Not even close. A lot of fans seem genuinely surprised that Disney would do this, but having seen what they've done with other things in the past , I saw this as more par for the course in their behavior.

Disney has been pretty worshipped by and large by marvel movie fans up until this point. They've been Teflon for a lot of fans , not all to be sure, but they've never faced a backlash like this from Marvel fans. If anything Disney had a lot of the drama with the SW fans much more so than with the MCU fans.


But we may just have to agree to disagree.