Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 | May 5, 2023 | The 9th most profitable film of 2023

[The Futurist]

1 minute ago, That One Guy said:

 

People just don't get it.

It s progress, stupid.

[That One Girl]

6 minutes ago, Hades said:

 Gunn is nothing compared to Lasseter......Gunn is super replaceable...

 

so actual sexual harassment/assault is fine as long as you're a big name in the industry???  this is the exact mentality that led Weinstein to be in a position of power for so long.

[Durden]

Holy shit

[Barnack]

1 hour ago, dashrendar44 said:

"We can't even crack lame pedophilia rape jokes publicly anymore without outrage!" is really the hill people wants to die on in 2018?

If not lame but good pedophilia joke are still ok to do, then no people will not die on that hill, but who is the judge ?

[Barnack]

41 minutes ago, dashrendar44 said:

No they didn't fight for "that" right to crack jokes making light of pedophilia and rape. "Freedom of speech" is not freedom of consequence of said free speech. Nobody forbid Gunn to make lame pedophilia/rape jokes on Twitter for several years on going unchallenged, he said what he said unbothered, people are free to react to what he chose freely to say on a public platform.

 

What I see of Gunn's apologists is a lot of entitlement like "So now we can't offend people with pedophilia and rape jokes anymore, the world is going crazy, we're being muzzled!" like it was something positive that really needed to be expressed as a herald of free speech. Being able to crack pedophilia and rape jokes when you're a public figure is the measure of freedom now...

 

Anyway, avowed rapist going on a petty crusade against a douchey detractor that loves cracking rape jokes on Twitter. Stupidity all around. He had it coming.

Free speech is exactly freedom of consequence:

 

Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or sanction

 

You are conflating freedom of speech and american law / first amendment concept they are 2 completely different thing, first amendment is not freedom of consequence, freespeech is the idea of less has possible consequence for expressing an idea, let alone a joke without any.

Edited July 21, 2018 by Barnack

[dashrendar44]

2 minutes ago, Barnack said:

Free speech is exactly freedom of consequence:

 

Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or sanction

 

You are conflating freedom of speech and american law / first amendment.

Quote

Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment include obscenity (as determined by the Miller test), fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct,^[9] speech that incites imminent lawless action, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States

[Barnack]

19 minutes ago, dashrendar44 said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States

Yes like I said you are clearly conflating the first amendment and the concept freedom of speech together (something americans often seem to do), they are 2 different things. State does not protect freedom of speech obviously. First amendment, american law does not protect civil consequence of saying a joke, the principle of freedom of speech aspire to do so.

 

Gunn was never involved in any child pornography or incitation to commit a crime that we know off, has for being obscene because it lack artistic value.... that would fit in there obviously (or at least could he does not seem to be a good comedian at all), but that is such a subjective and hard line to judge, would have been said be a characther in a R-rated cartoon by someone funny no one would have thought it would not have been covered by the 1st.

 

It is an universal human right concept, not an american one or something defined by it's constitution or law.

Edited July 21, 2018 by Barnack

[dxmatrixdt]

.

Edited February 20, 2019 by Slave Animal Rights

[The Futurist]

Christian Bale is next.

I cannot say much right now but if my sources are correct, well ...

We will see.

[The Futurist]

And Jlaw is involved, she knew.

They all knew.

[RandomCat]

You know...this is quicky all the way round, between old awful tweets, the fact the guy who "exposed" them is a rapist apologist, and all that. But can we not assume Gunn is a pedophile? Shitty awful tweets that reflect the kind of Troma brand of humor isn't the same as being a pedophile.

[dxmatrixdt]

,

Edited February 20, 2019 by Slave Animal Rights

[Nova]

Regardless of who Disney has and currently employs the reality is that Disney KNEW about these tweets when they hired James Gunn. They didn’t care about them when they hired him so why is it a problem now? 

 

But then you also add that other layer in which they employed Victor Salva and Johnny Depp. So those of you who are saying Disney is doing this to save their image or actions have consequences, how come this isn’t applying for the two men above? Why don’t they care about their image? More people know about the Depp situation since he’s a much bigger name than James Gunn and yet they still kept Depp aboard.....and Depp actually abused someone. 

 

And again James Gunn was hired and Disney knew about the tweets. 

 

No one is actually saying that making jokes about rape and pedophilia in the way Gunn did is okay. What people are confused about is why was he fired even though they already knew about the tweets? And how come Disney has hired and kept on people who are actual pedophiles and domestic abusers? Hint: it has nothing to do with morals and everything to do with politics. 

Edited July 21, 2018 by Nova

[dxmatrixdt]

.

Edited February 20, 2019 by Slave Animal Rights

[Nova]

Defending rape and pedophilia jokes is not the hill I’m going to die on but wondering why Disney is okay with hiring actual pedophiles, rapists and domestic abusers is okay for them but making jokes about them years ago, is where they draw the line, is something that I’d really want an answer to. 

 

Maybe if James Gunn was an actual pedophile instead, he’d still have his job. He should have beat his significant other and I’m sure he’d still be employed. Apparently that’s okay for Disney. But sending out tweets? That’s it.....you’ve crossed the line!!! 

[RandomCat]

I'm still more surprised Disney Hired James Gunn, fully aware of his film history, than firing him because people who say things like those tweets, but seriously, got pissy.

[dxmatrixdt]

.

Edited February 20, 2019 by Slave Animal Rights

[WittyUsername]

54 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

Christian Bale is next.

I cannot say much right now but if my sources are correct, well ...

We will see.

What? 

[Premium George]

20 minutes ago, Nova said:

Defending rape and pedophilia jokes is not the hill I’m going to die on but wondering why Disney is okay with hiring actual pedophiles, rapists and domestic abusers is okay for them but making jokes about them years ago, is where they draw the line, is something that I’d really want an answer to. 

 

Maybe if James Gunn was an actual pedophile instead, he’d still have his job. He should have beat his significant other and I’m sure he’d still be employed. Apparently that’s okay for Disney. But sending out tweets? That’s it.....you’ve crossed the line!!! 

It's a simple answer. Disney is a multi billion dollars corporation, that take decision based on money and not morality. They are currently going through biggest deal ever and are very cautious.

[RandomCat]

2 minutes ago, Premium George said:

It's a simple answer. Disney is a multi billion dollars corporation, that take decision based on money and not morality. They are currently going through biggest deal ever and are very cautious.

People are more upset by someone like Cernovich's clearly political involvement that is in no way invested in any sense of morality being the cause, than actually saying the tweets are ok (or even Disney firing him over the tweets.) It really is circumstance, that isn't helped that the issue was already addressed by Gunn several years ago.