| The move comes after conservative personalities resurfaced old tweets Thursday in which the filmmaker joked about controversial topics such as pedophelia and rape. Gunn has been an outspoken critic of President Donald Trump |
pretty shocking - but as we used to say in 1996
don't ever put anything online that you wouldn't want your mother to see or read.
bummer he doesn't get to finish the trilogy - hope they get Taika Waititi to replace him
James Gunn Fired from 'Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3 - (
New Window )
Ultimately, the lesson here is don't make blanket statements. No matter who you are or the point you are making. It really bugs me that this lesson has to be repeated. Its not like it hasn't been argued already ad nauseum here on BBI.
pj is right that Gunn's tweets may require further investigation. Too many to dismiss. However, others have a right to say they need more evidence before they are ready to crucify the guy. Regardless, the tweets are in really poor taste.
this a productive post.
If the world was filled only with idiots like you Harvey Weinstein would still be raping young actresses.
Quote:
Why don’t you go apply for a job at the FBI? You’re a regular Sherlock Holmes over here. Podesta doesn’t have a chance with you on the case.
this a productive post.
If the world was filled only with idiots like you Harvey Weinstein would still be raping young actresses.
Yes, posts should be productive like this. The king of "Do as I say, not as I do."
Quote:
In comment 14019048 732NYG said:
Quote:
Why don’t you go apply for a job at the FBI? You’re a regular Sherlock Holmes over here. Podesta doesn’t have a chance with you on the case.
this a productive post.
If the world was filled only with idiots like you Harvey Weinstein would still be raping young actresses.
Yes, posts should be productive like this. The king of "Do as I say, not as I do."
I'm usually not the first one to resort to personal attacks, I don't shy away from controversial opinions I may have, but I do try and keep it on topic and not personal.
if I do get personal I usually apologize.
Quote:
Why don’t you go apply for a job at the FBI? You’re a regular Sherlock Holmes over here. Podesta doesn’t have a chance with you on the case.
this a productive post.
If the world was filled only with idiots like you Harvey Weinstein would still be raping young actresses.
I really don’t see how you can equate the two at all. Two entirely different situations, one with many, many witnesses who have come forward with their own stories, and one with joke tweets in poor taste with nobody claiming a single thing about him otherwise. If only people like you were more adamant about people like Roy More, Jim Jordan, Robert Wynn, oh and that other guy who lives in Washington, oh well, his name isn’t important. You know, actual sexual predators. It’s funny how those guys only seem to get support from one side, but James Gunn? He needs to be investigated.
I have been very consistent here.
Not sure why you don't understand that there are some people who believe that a POS scumbag is a POS scumbag regardless of political affiliation. This (for me) is not an our side vs your side debate.
Cernovich is a scumbag. Roger Ailes was scum bag, Bill O'Reilly a scum bag, based on the evidence, Gunn should be investigated IMO.
Weinstein wasn't a scum bag rapist until he was if you know what I'm saying. His behavior went on for years un-checked.
How do you know what Gunn is doing? My only point all along is there is enough evidence to not dismiss as jokes and definitely worth an investigation.
I think Mike Cernovich is a complete piece of crap and he will get his comeuppance one day - Karma is a bitch
but that said James Gunn is a total idiot for ever posting things like this. and deserves to be fired from GoG Vol 3.
As I said in my first post
When I start working in Web 1.0 we quickly developed
a rule -
Don't ever post anything on internet that you would not want your mother to see
This rule is even more relevant today than in 1995.
What does this have to do with anything?
by the authorities to see if he actually engaged in viewing or worse of child pornography. Strange question, didn't think that was a mystery. Did you read the tweets? He exchanged tweets and shared tweets that came from convicted pedophiles and/or were purported to contain links to child pornography.
Quote:
By who and for what exactly?
by the authorities to see if he actually engaged in viewing or worse of child pornography. Strange question, didn't think that was a mystery. Did you read the tweets? He exchanged tweets and shared tweets that came from convicted pedophiles and/or were purported to contain links to child pornography.
Viewing is not the crime possessing is the crime. It also isn't that easy, where was he located when it happened, is it still within the statute of limitations when it occurred (wasn't it ten years ago), did it fit the legal definition of child pornography in the location at the time, etc...
Quote:
By who and for what exactly?
by the authorities to see if he actually engaged in viewing or worse of child pornography. Strange question, didn't think that was a mystery. Did you read the tweets? He exchanged tweets and shared tweets that came from convicted pedophiles and/or were purported to contain links to child pornography.
I thought it was the most important question asked.
He has constitutional rights so there would have to be something to legally justify it.
except for Troma. Sick humor is their thing.
I understand the business decision completely, but I personally don't like this social justice stuff unless something criminal was found or evidence he wasn't just being a provocateur.
I don't like what he said and he's getting his own medicine, but I still don't support it. I didn't like the Roseanne thing either.
Quote:
but I don�t see how firing him can be disputed. He�s a sick fuck one way or another - either with a really awful sense of humor or by actually engaging in the activities. Either way he�s bad for business, any business. He�s be fired for any company, especially one that makes movies for kids.
except for Troma. Sick humor is their thing.
I understand the business decision completely, but I personally don't like this social justice stuff unless something criminal was found or evidence he wasn't just being a provocateur.
I don't like what he said and he's getting his own medicine, but I still don't support it. I didn't like the Roseanne thing either.
I agree with this in part. I think it sets a terrible precedent to fire someone based on mob pressure. One that can quickly spiral out of control. Already you see more names getting brought up for much less (probably what IMO I'd say are actually just bad jokes).
but based on what I read of the tweets (and not being a legal expert about statutes or what constitutes breaking the law - viewing or possession, etc) I'd expect somehow someone needs to investigate him, whether it's Disney and their IT/security staff or the actual law enforcement authorities, so much smoke often leads to fire.
I'd really hate to have to explain to a parent of a child in one of his projects that yeah, we knew he had literally thousands of pedophilia themed tweets, but we didn't think he was a pedophile. Not sure how you realistically know without an investigation.
This wasn't a one-off bad joke.
Roseanne was fired for political reasons, if you think she was fired for a racist tweet think again, but that's not really directly related to this (outcome).
And ironically, or not, Ben Shapiro, is leading the efforts to get Gunn his job back. Disney has agreed to listen.
Quote:
In comment 14019416 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
but I don�t see how firing him can be disputed. He�s a sick fuck one way or another - either with a really awful sense of humor or by actually engaging in the activities. Either way he�s bad for business, any business. He�s be fired for any company, especially one that makes movies for kids.
except for Troma. Sick humor is their thing.
I understand the business decision completely, but I personally don't like this social justice stuff unless something criminal was found or evidence he wasn't just being a provocateur.
I don't like what he said and he's getting his own medicine, but I still don't support it. I didn't like the Roseanne thing either.
I agree with this in part. I think it sets a terrible precedent to fire someone based on mob pressure. One that can quickly spiral out of control. Already you see more names getting brought up for much less (probably what IMO I'd say are actually just bad jokes).
but based on what I read of the tweets (and not being a legal expert about statutes or what constitutes breaking the law - viewing or possession, etc) I'd expect somehow someone needs to investigate him, whether it's Disney and their IT/security staff or the actual law enforcement authorities, so much smoke often leads to fire.
I'd really hate to have to explain to a parent of a child in one of his projects that yeah, we knew he had literally thousands of pedophilia themed tweets, but we didn't think he was a pedophile. Not sure how you realistically know without an investigation.
This wasn't a one-off bad joke.
Roseanne was fired for political reasons, if you think she was fired for a racist tweet think again, but that's not really directly related to this (outcome).
And ironically, or not, Ben Shapiro, is leading the efforts to get Gunn his job back. Disney has agreed to listen.
anything that is on social media or in the public domain is being investigated by thousands of fanboys, trolls, or honestly concerned citizens. If they hit on something that would justify an official investigation, I am sure it will happen.
However, in this and every other case, if you are alleging something to be a fact, the burden of proof is on you.
I am saying there is no proof of Gunn being a pedophile. Simple as that.
If new evidence emerges, I will gladly revise my stance.