[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/co/ - Comics & Cartoons



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: 1523405083086.png (1.99 MB, 1400x700)
1.99 MB
1.99 MB PNG
Should they just cancel it? GOTG is Gunn's baby and the actors aren't happy with him being gone.
>>
90% of audiences don't even know or care who Gunn is, and the actors can bitch all they want and still have to be in the film since they signed a contract stipulating they had to do it. They're not gonna cancel shit.
>>
The fact the actors and supposidely Marvel itself are kicking Marvel in the back of the seat over it gives me some hope for humanity in this hugbox-laden fucked up country we now live in.
>>
>>102258474
>90% of audiences don't even know or care who Gunn is
Then there was no reason to fire him.
>>
Canceling it would subtract hundreds of thousands of dollars for many people, I doubt it.
I think they'll get one of the producers to take it.
>>
>>102258474
>fire jamesy gunnery
>disney loses blueprints
>can't manage slapstick/sad moment/joke repeat
>GOTG loses 10's of dollars
Disney is over
>>
>>102258451
If they're determined to get rid of him I'd literally rather they just ride into the sunset after Avengers 4 but you know that's not what Di$ney is gonna do.

Doesn't matter what the consumer wants so long as they consume. The MCU is gonna go the way of Star Wars of they keep this attitude up moving forward.
>>
>>102258451
Shouldn't be that hard to do, seeing how there's only one Guardian left at this point.

Just don't undo the snap! Problem solved!
>>
>>102258581
Rocket can become a part of the Thor franchise.
>>
>>102258516
If public perception of the guy is only that he makes rape jokes on twitter and Disney would be ok with it then yeah that's the reason to fire him

God it's obvious people haven't worked in a professional setting when they make this claim.
>>
>>102258451
They've all but announced he's coming back. They're pretending like Kevin Feige is "going to bat" and taking a "long shot" on Gunn's behalf to make the rehiring more dramatic.

Basically Disney doesn't want to admit Cernovich successfully trolled them so they're acting like it's a real serious question if they're gonna rehire their billion dollar director or not.
>>
File: 1507073723797.jpg (67 KB, 600x450)
67 KB
67 KB JPG
>>102258451
Disney made a decision to avoid being a part of and accepting of one of their workers poor decisions, Gunn as an employee accepted it peacefully and respectfully and that was that.

That is what a business does, they are not friends or family and owe nothing to anyone and do not want to lose money over an employees mistake.

Social Media is a mistake for growing careers.

No matter what those actors say they can be bought and Disney has enough money to shut them up, there wont be a cancellation when there's possible profit to be made.
>>
>>102258451
Maybe. I doubt I'll watch it without Gunn, I'm not confident in many other directors to handle these characters and their stories well.
>>
>>102258635
This. Specially after insiders have said that Disney agreed to use Gunn's script for Vol 3 (one of Dave Bautista's points of contention about the movie), and other sources have said they'd be interested in hiring Gunn right away if he's dropped from Disney, including among them a "rival studio." Apparently though, they haven't done it because the negotiations on Disney still "ongoing", basically they just want to salvage their screw-up by giving him a good pay for the script and keep the door open for future installments. The fact that no other official statement has been made about this shows they're definitely not done.
>>
>>102258613
Now the public perception of him is "that guy who made those movies we all liked before Disney screwed him over because a bunch of white supremacists dug up decade old tweets", so firing him totally worked out great I guess.
>>
>>102259944
This.
The GotG movies are some of the few in the MCU where it really feels like someone's vision. Gunn understands these characters he's all but built from scratch, so it's not a situation like Iron Man or Cap where you can change their directors around and have it more or less the same.
>>
>>102258451
I've never met an intelligent person that liked these shit movies. All my low IQ cousin, nieces/nephews etc. love this shit and they're only good for menial work. That's /co/ right here. Dumb as shit. Lowest IQ board on this website.

t. 129 IQ
>>
>>102260148
If anything, I wouldn't be here and I wouldn't have ended up loving Marvel cosmic and spending money I often don't have in collections and reprints if it wasn't for the first GOTG. I wasn't really into comics until then.
>>
>>102259883
>No matter what those actors say they can be bought

Dunno about that. They're not exactly struggling to make ends meet, desperately hoping for some money from the mouse to put food on their table.

>and Disney has enough money to shut them up

Evidently not.
>>
>>102259883
>That is what a business does, they are not friends or family and owe nothing to anyone and do not want to lose money over an employees mistake.

sure, so how does it make sense to fire the guy who turned a literal who franchise into a money machine, and replace him with someone who is almost guaranteed to make less money and piss off the actors? Bautista has to show up and read his lines, he can't be forced to care.

When you force people to make movies they don't want to make you end up with Spider-Man 3.
>>
>>102258474
>and the actors can bitch all they want and still have to be in the film since they signed a contract stipulating they had to do it.
WHY DO SO MANY PEOPLE GOT THAT WRONG!

They can actually walk out if they want. IT's quite frequent in the filming industry, especially if it happens prior to the shooting. They might have to pay a fee, but most can afford it and Disney has more to lose than they do with them walking out.

Like I have said before, the main cast can make Disney bend if they coordinate and act as a unit.

also this>>102258537
>>
>>102259883
>Disney made a decision to avoid being a part of and accepting of one of their workers poor decisions, Gunn as an employee accepted it peacefully and respectfully and that was that.
>That is what a business does, they are not friends or family and owe nothing to anyone and do not want to lose money over an employees mistake.
Except their employee didn't made any mistake, there. Disney knew about Gunn's past.

And in a business, employee can sometime get their shit together to right a wrong when the employer mess up.

It's legal for Disney tofire anyone, but it being legal doesn't mean it is not wrong.
>>
>>102261056
Yeah, people somehow think that Disney can own actors like slaves and that contracts are unbreakable like devil's pacts. If at any point they feel uncomfortable with what they're doing they can always walk out, it's not like they don't have lawyers helping them with those things. They usually can't renegotiate on top of what they already signed but they're free to leave anytime if there's aggravating conditions that force them out.
>>
>>102258451
>>102260148
>GOTG is Gunn's baby
I mean, you can definitely see his influence in GotG, but the Marvel Factory (a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Mouse House) is bigger than any single artist. I suspect that any talented director could take over GotG3 and the vast majority of the public won't even notice.

>>102261086
>Disney knew about Gunn's past.
I suspect that some of the Disney management was aware of Gunn's sick sense of humor, but not the specifics. If Gunn was smart, he would have deleted his entire Twitter history the day Disney first hired him, thereby ensuring that the child rape tweets would find no wider audience.

You simply can't expect a multinational media conglomerate whose name is synonymous with "family entertainment" to sit idly by as their employee's child rape tweets are posted and reposted across social media. Disney has a reputation to uphold regardless of how much Batista whines about it.
>>
>>102260282
Maybe your family is just dumb.
t. 138 IQ
>>
http://collider.com/james-gunn-fired-marvel-disney/
https://www.indiewire.com/2018/08/marvel-persuade-disney-rehire-james-gunn-guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-3-1201992740/
https://movieweb.com/guardians-galaxy-3-marvel-rehire-james-gunn/

The pressure to get Gunn is way, way larger than the pressure to get him to leave ever was.

It's happening, sorry /pol/tards.
>>
>>102261252
>You simply can't expect a multinational media conglomerate whose name is synonymous with "family entertainment" to sit idly by as their employee's child rape tweets
Sit idly, no. But Gunn issued official apology and you can actually expect from a company with family values to show forgiveness to someone who has clearly reformed. Especially when the deeds he was criticized for were done when he wasn't working for them.
>>
>>102260282
Is this some Rick and Morty posting?
>>
>>102258451
Even if they never officially rehire him, there's a pretty big fuckin chance he's just gonna end up shadow-directing it, especially considering all the actors' stance on it.
And even if he doesn't, they're already dead set on using his as of now, completed script, and even without the man himself, I can assume it's gonna be mostly the same lead crew.

I'm not worried about Gunn, since other studios are already clamoring for him, and I'm honestly, not too worried about the movie either.
>>
>>102258451
Marvel has at least half docen of teams that can replace them, they just need to throw Racoon and tree there
>>
>>102261414
Marvel is already talking to Disney to get him back, they don't want or care to replace him.
>>
>>102261252
>I suspect that any talented director could take over GotG3 and the vast majority of the public won't even notice

Like when Ron Howard took over Solo?
>>
>>102261426
why? Gamora's arch is done after Avengers 4, Drax too, they could replace all the others and keep just the cgi characters, put them in the next Thor movie or make a new cosmic franchise and problem solved
>>
>>102260761
You notice that spider man 3 was released, right?
>>
>>102261298
Man you seem pretty obsessed with /pol/ whats the deal anon?
>>
>>102261459
>why?
Because he's a good director who served his role well, and his firing was poorly justified since he never did anything wrong while performing his role, and the worst thing was some shitposts he already apologized for a decade ago. Marvel recognizes his talents is worth more than some manufactured outrage.
>>
>>102261306
LOL. You're in a dreamworld. You think rabid feminists will EVER forgive him for those rape jokes?
>>
>>102261426
>Marvel is already talking to Disney to get him back
Source on that?

I still have the feeling that Gunn somehow pissed off some high executive and it was used as an excuse.
>>
>>102258451

No please, let Disney go on and bankrupt itself.
>>
File: 1428530506741.jpg (30 KB, 426x551)
30 KB
30 KB JPG
>>102261484
>mention /pol/ once
>WOW YOU'RE OBSESSED???
Why are you upset that /pol/ got mentioned? You sound pretty defensive of them.
>>
>>102261486
You sound like a james gunn defense force. He was literally getting into idiotic twitter fights with fanboys just a month or three ago.
>>
>>102258613

The guy who fired him is well known for being a rapist and yet he's fine.
>>
>>102261506
Yikes... someone is a tad upset.

Don't worry anon maybe after 2024 your brain will be fixed.
>>
>>102261495
literally five posts up from that comment >>102261298
Too many people support Gunn compared to the number of people pretending to be upset about him.
>>
File: 1428706573831.jpg (71 KB, 538x434)
71 KB
71 KB JPG
>>102261517
>You're upset.
>No YOU'RE UPSET
Are you from 2004? Where's your NO U image macro?
>>
File: (You).png (538 KB, 817x609)
538 KB
538 KB PNG
>>102261517
>WHY BRING UP /pol/ HUH?? WHY??
>Well, actually, it's an off-hand remar-
>wow okay, buddy, cool your jets
>>
>>102261486
>he's a good director
lol, the first script is good, i really like GotG1 but the second is crap, I don't know if he should put his hand in Warlock. They should wait to fire him but now Disney can't get him back.
>>
>Fire Rosanne/Paula dean for saying mean words
"Yeah that was justified"
>Fire Gunn for making Rape/Pedo jokes
"What the FUCK"
>>
>>102261495
Maybe. Or maybe they know some shit about him that they're afraid of getting out.

I mean, look at this shit with weinstein. Can you imagine the fallout if ANYONE in the entire production turns up with pedo shit or Me Too? Even if gunn is actually clean, aside from his shitposting, it will the last thing that disney could ever want. They'd easily can an entire movie than risk it.
>>
>>102261589
>I mean, look at this shit with weinstein. Can you imagine the fallout if ANYONE in the entire production turns up with pedo shit or Me Too?
If some sexual abuses had actually happened on the Marvel sets, with he current strength of the #Meetoo going on, it would be already out.
>>
>>102261486
>and the worst thing was some shitposts he already apologized for a decade ago

I guess it is all fun and games until one of your shitposting buddies that you were totes not serious with ends up becoming a convicted pedophile right?
>>
>>102258451
>and the actors aren't happy with him being gone.
fuck maybe they should just take a knee when thantos comes around in protest. oh wait he bitchslapped them all the same
>>
>>102258516
the mouse protects the mouse. they're not gonna allow someone doing those types of jokes to get a pass. this isn't the 80s
>>
>>102261630
First, remember that it doesn't have to be a true allegation to shaft disney. Second, this also includes the FUTURE.
>>
>>102258516
In fact that's the main reason
>But Bautista loves the guy
who cares about Bautista, kill him in Avengers 4
>>
>>102258451
Actor's don't give a shit, it's just feigned loyalty.

Likewise no one will give a shit if it's Gunn or some other hack making the movie.
>>
File: 1533630034043.jpg (26 KB, 540x729)
26 KB
26 KB JPG
>>102258451
Enjoy your medicine snookums :)
>>
>>102261571
Yup exactly. those are two different case. I am glad people are finally understanding it.

The incessant comparison between Gunn and Roseanne was disingenuous as fuck.

I mean, simply look at it,

Roseanne:
-insulted an actual, exsiting half-black person, saying she was the offspring of Islam radicals and ape
-did it recently
-while working Disney
-when she was making apology for what she did, retweeted the same days twitts saying she did nothing wrong

Gunn:
-made shocking jokes about non-existing person
-ten years ago
-while not working for Disney
-sincerely apologised several times.

Any person with a functioning brain can see it's not the same case at all.
>>
>>102261662
>First, remember that it doesn't have to be a true allegation to shaft disney.
As a matter of fact so far, all the #meetoo that have came up turned out to be true, as all the persons accused of it admitted to be guilty of it.

Fuck Look at John Laceter. Literally working for Disney, admitted the fact and it still took an eternity for him to be fired.

So, no, this alone prove that even with #meetoo, Disney can take his sweet time before effectively firing someone. Laceter alone defeat your point.
>>
>>102261716
Anon, sorry, but solidarity exist. and the actors who supported Gunn are sincere.
>>
>>102261761
It seems you didn't understand my point at all, and are going off on a bizzare tangent.
>>
>>102261789
I am understanding it. And my counterpoint is that you are mistaking #meetoo for a witch hunt that make people overacts, whereas so far #meetoo has showed to be on point, not make false accusation and made higher up use the firing button with caution and time.
>>
>>102261774
Dream on
>>
>>102261848
wake up
>>
>>102261742
>Jokes are ok
>Based on metrics that I can change at any time

Not really how it works. Either its all ok, or none of it is. You aren't going to have any favorable response to a "joke" police idealism.

Personally I hope they rehire him. Hollywood is embroiled in the optics of being pedophile enablers. Giving legs to that over some dime a dozen capeshit movie sounds like a fair trade off.
>>
>>102261716
If that were the case, how come we don’t see this kind of feigned loyalty every time something like this happens?

You can’t honestly believe that.
>>
>>102261855
>implying Rosanne was joking and isn’t just plain racist.
>>
>>102261855
I actually support gunn being rehired, but that retard keeps on copy pasting that leftypol talking points shit in every thread here. He's going to respond by repeating himself, insisting that everyone who disagrees is dishonest, stupid, or part of a right wing conspiracy. Insisting that Rosanee is REALLY racist and doesn't have a 30 year carreer or real life shitposting, but Gunn is different. Ignoring the actual reality show actors Gunn was joking about, and also he'll take the thread to bump limit, or close enough.
>>
>>102261885
It doesnt matter what you think. What the public sees is one side being lambasted over a joke, and the other being given the how unfortunate treatment.
If you think people care about racism more than pedophilia, you are insane. If you think timeframe matters to anyone, it doesn't. It matters to you because its your side this time. Take a loss, being stubborn about it will just lose you in the court of public opinion
>>
>>102261855
>>Jokes are ok
>>Based on metrics that I can change at any time
I like how you point out the flaws in an argument I DIDN'T MADE AT ALL.

None of what I say was about whther or not a joke is okay.

>You aren't going to have any favorable response to a "joke" police idealism.
Hence why it wasn't part of my argument.

It's like you had a counterpoint ready to be used and didn't even bother if it fitted the ones that were actually made.

Please reread my post and then actually try to find a flaw in the logic presented.
>>
At this point, I just want to hear from Feige.
>>
>>102261912
>but that retard keeps on copy pasting that leftypol talking points shit in every thread here.
I just typed it entirely myself.

>He's going to respond by repeating himself, insisting that everyone who disagrees is dishonest
So, repeatedly posting Gunn=Roseanne ad eternam is okay, but arguing against it is not?
>>
>>102258451
>GOTG is Gunn's baby
No wonder he fucked it in the ass.
>>
>>102261912
>, but Gunn is different. Ignoring the actual reality show actors Gunn was joking about, and also he'll take the thread to bump limit, or close enough.
Nothing is being ignored
please explain to me how >>102261742
>Roseanne:
>-insulted an actual, exsiting half-black person, saying she was the offspring of Islam radicals and ape
>-did it recently
>-while working Disney
>-when she was making apology for what she did, retweeted the same days twitts saying she did nothing wrong

>Gunn:
>-made shocking jokes about non-existing person
>-ten years ago
>-while not working for Disney
>-sincerely apologised several times.

Doesn't cover it up?
>>
>>102258451
Reboot it. They literally have many ways to do it in Marvel.
>>
>>102261742
It's not about the direct contents of what they each said. The Roseanne/Gunn comparison gets made because Gunn went on twitter saying that she can say whatever and it's up to Disney if she gets fired. Then the exact same thing happened to him.
>>
>>102261958
So you agree that all jokes are ok regardless on content?
>>
File: Brutal.png (136 KB, 325x325)
136 KB
136 KB PNG
>>102261998
>>
>>102262029
Bingo. The only argument being made is that we should have some arbitrary metrics on whats acceptable, which will never fly
>>
Anyone else dislike gotg2? I found its tone inconsistent. It tried to be both a personal story for Starlord and a universe ending threat. It sort of felt that halfway through I started eatching the second half of a different movie.
>>
>>102258451
M-I-C
I rock the Mic properly!
K-E-Y
Turning profits I've got the key!
>>
>>102262029
>The Roseanne/Gunn comparison gets made because Gunn went on twitter saying that she can say whatever and it's up to Disney if she gets fired. Then the exact same thing happened to him.
>she can say whatever
Except he actually precised that it's not for saying "whatever", but for saying something abhorrent.
And it's not like Gunn complained Disney wasn't allowed to fire him.

But what Gunn said actually IS beside the point.
What is being argued is whether o not the firing is justified.
As explained above, Roseanne firing is justified, Gunn's isn't.

Gunnn's opinion on the matter is of lesser importance.
>>
>>102262072
see>>102262117
> is that we should have some arbitrary metrics on whats acceptable
except that was never the point. again see >>102261742
It's not about what's accpetable, it's about how the person deal with past mistake and the notion of prescription.
>>
>>102262081
I liked it.
> It tried to be both a personal story for Starlord and a universe ending threat.
So, basically, most comics book cape story. I mean, trying to save the world while at the same trying to sort of personal issues is one of the staple of the genre.
>>
>tfw we actually live in a time where the literal joke police exist
>On both sides of the political spectrum
I hate this fucking shit. Everybody's trying to fuck somebody over over nothing.
The fact that shitty jokes made years ago can fuck you over is disgusting. But /pol/ loves that "DA LIBERULS ARE GETTING WHAT DEY DESERVE" even though it's slowly fucking over free speech, and when your right to be an edgelord is taken from you, it'll be this entire site that shut down.
>>
>>102258474
The third film will be a souless, apathetic, weak end to a trilogy without Gunn.

It will be made with none of the love and care of GotG1 and GotG2.
>>
>>102261947
>It doesnt matter what you think. What the public sees is one side being lambasted over a joke, and the other being given the how unfortunate treatment.
wrong, what the public actually see is someone being lambasted over a racist insult while the other side is being fired for what was clearly only a shocking joke with no intend to arm an existing kid.
>>
>>102261958
>>>Jokes are ok
>>>Based on metrics that I can change at any time
Objectively, directly insulting a real person isn't the same than making rape joke about a non-existing kid.
>>
>>102260761
This is why Feige does not force actors to do stuff.

He could have demanded Weaving show up but didn't. He got a different actor yo step in.
>>
>>102261473
I blame God every day for it.
>>
>>102261513
They are working for Disney, they are rapists by default.
>>
>>102262201
Thats how YOU see it. Especially with the NYT girl holding her job after her jokes about killing white people while Alex Jones gets banned from all social media.

I mean its fine. Acting like its ok for me but not for thee only pushes people away, and hollywood cant die soon enough alongside social media. The arrogance and petulance of the stance you are taking just hands the battle over to your enemies. All over third rate capeshit
>>
>>102261493
>rapejokes and racejokes in nearly every other bigger comedians repertoire
>No No, it was muh evil feminazis and not actual rapist Cernovich and your fellow /pol/ subhumans

You all deserve the bullet.
>>
>>102262213
I actually agree with you here. However, I'm on the side of its all ok. If you dont like it, ignore it. Now the left his given the right an axe to swing at them, and its all going to shit. So burn it all down. Social media was a mistake
>>
>>102261571
>something that happened in the present
Vs
>something that happened nearly a decade ago

Do you not see the issue?
>>
>>102261716
Bautista is asking to be released from his contract if gunn isn't back for the 3rd movie. Wouldn't be surprised if him leaving causes a cascade effect with the others. Vin diesel will probably stay because he needs money to finance his 12th fast and furious.
>>
>>102261742
>>102262497
Don't respond to it, thank you come again.
>>
>>102261571
People are still trying to push Paula Deen?
>>
File: 739[1].png (80 KB, 211x244)
80 KB
80 KB PNG
>>102261571
How do you not see the difference between Roseanne saying what she said while actively working on her show and Gunn saying what he said almost ten years before he was even hired by Disney, you absolute brainlet?
>>
>>102261988
>So, repeatedly posting Gunn=Roseanne ad eternam is okay, but arguing against it is not?
Just speeding through the preliminaries, so anon is properly prepped for

>THIS IS DIFFERENT, ANYONE CAN SEE IT YOU RETARD
part of the thread.
>>
>>102262369
It's more that the house of twitter is on fire, and shit's burning, and continuing to burn.
>>
File: 1430177042814.jpg (916 KB, 3008x2000)
916 KB
916 KB JPG
Daily reminder to not respond to /pol/

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming
>>
>>102262571
Everyone sees your argument, no one accepts it. You just dont understand that you arent trying to appeal with your side, but the general public.

Basically let me put it like this, would you accept a massive political and media combined apology to Trump for their lambasting of his "pussy tapes"
Or is it because Gunn's was a joke? Does the metric of public and private matter?
Because if your argument is time frame and apologising, I dont see why you wouldnt have accepted his apology.
>>
>>102261885
>implying gun doesn't want to fuck little kids

He literally fixated on nothing but pedophilia in his jokes. I'm racist yet I joke about other shit
>>
Wasn't this made yesterday?
Why make it again?
I'll repeat what I said in the Last Thread.


Taiki Waihiti
Takes over
The End.....
>>
>>102260117
If you're a professional esp. Working on kids entertainment you can't say stuff like that. Why people feel the need to publicly associate themselves with gross jokes/opinions on social media is beyond me. If you get a new gf, you delete your social media pics of the old one If you get a job at Disney, you delete public jokes about pedophelia. It's common sense
>>
>>102258451
Yes, all pedo's and pedo apolagists need to be arrested
>>
>Get warned for years what you post on social media may affect your career
>It happens
>Wtf what about my free speech this must be /pol/s fault!!!!
>>
>>102262768
Yup, that is what I’m implying. How astute of you.
>>
>>102261947
I think people care more about racist opinions than about jokes about pedophilia.

You just try to conflate the two to muddle the whole thing. It’s intellectually dishonest.
>>
>>102262341
>Especially with the NYT girl holding her job after her jokes about killing white people while Alex Jones gets banned from all social media.
So that's how the public actually see it.

I am not agreeing with her being left scott-free, but we are talking about public perception, not my opinion.
>>
>>102262648
So, someone make a stupid statement and you are complaining that someone else tell him that's stupid? you know you are on 4chan, right?
>>
James Cumm
>>
>>102260148
Waititi did a better version though
Plus the second one in which he had more control wasn't as good as the first one
>>
>>102263076
You think that, because its currently the perception that benefits you. If you held to this standard, Joy Reid should be fired immediately.
I'm not muddling anything, I think both are fine. Words only have power when you give it to them.

>>102263081
The public didn't make those calls, the people in the high seats did. Jack disagreed with banning AJ and now he is being run up and down for his noncompliance. If you arent seeing the massive tone shift online, you arent looking.
>>
>>102262734
>no one accepts it.
dude, basically everyone in this thread accept, you are one of the few blockhead who are still in disagreement with that distinction.

> You just dont understand that you arent trying to appeal with your side, but the general public.
Who an argument appeal to is irrelevant, what matter is if it is right.

>Basically let me put it like this, would you accept a massive political and media combined apology to Trump for their lambasting of his "pussy tapes"
when your argument is whataboutism, you have no argument. We are talking about how Roseanne=Gunn is a right or wrong statement, bringing in someone who was not actually fired for what he said is irrelevant.

>Because if your argument is time frame and apologising, I dont see why you wouldnt have accepted his apology.
Roseanne apologies weren't sincere because she retweeted twits of people stating there was nothing wrong with what she initially stated.

Anon, the whole difference between Gunn and Roseanne has actually been lid down already.>>102261742
And so far, you have failed to address any of those points. "but Trump" isn't one.
>>
>>102258451
Yeah it's for the best, now the franchise is synonym with child abuse
>>
>>102263179
>Jack disagreed with banning AJ and now he is being run up and down for his noncompliance. If you arent seeing the massive tone shift online, you arent looking.
Alex was literally running a scam show to sell his produces. Jack is wrong in thinking he should have remained.

aLso, stop relying on whataboutism. It doesn't matter what the public perception is.

Objectively, Roseanne was fired for justified reason and Gunn was fired for unjust reasons.

Saying "but the public is being mean to someone else" doesn't make that less true. Trying to stirr the conversation to an other matter doesn't make you win the argument.
>>
>>102263239
No, it isn't.
>>
>>102258581
Except they HAVE to undo the snap for the rest of the MCU.
>>
>>102263215
>Everyone in this thread
You mean a contained sphere of like minded people?
>Whataboutism
Is not a logical fallacy, lest we avoid ever using historical evidence to support an argument.
>Roseannes apologies weren't sincere
I dont believe Gunns were either, otherwise he would refuse to take his job back in recognition of the decision by disney

>>102263275
>Objectively one was right and the other was wrong.

Says you, objectively and with bias. Disney said otherwise, so if this is based on objectivity, its not your place to decide, it was Disneys.
>>
>>102261742
>about non-exisiting people
Yeah all those rape jokes he made about teenage actors that don't exist
>>
>>102263418
>You mean a contained sphere of like minded people?
No, I mean almost everyone in this thread.
>like minded people
Having a group of people disagreeing ith you on one point doesn't mean they will agree on everything. So, no.

>Is not a logical fallacy, lest we avoid ever using historical evidence to support an argument.
Except, in this case, it didn't support the argument, whoich is just to make thing clear, the statement of "Roseanne's firing was justified, but Gunn's firing was unjust". This is the argument you disagree with, and your mention of Trump, Jack and Alex Jones didn't have any issue on the matter.

>I dont believe Gunns were either, otherwise he would refuse to take his job back in recognition of the decision by Disney
That's not a valid point. Him accepting to go back to Disney wouldn't be a denial of his apology, but an accepting of forgiveness, not the same thing.

>Says you, objectively and with bias
Bias are irrelevant. what matter are the pertinence of the argument. Saying "you are biased, therefore I don't have to take into account your point" is not a valid counter argument.

>Disney said otherwise, so if this is based on objectivity, its not your place to decide, it was Disneys.
That's not how objectivity work. anon. Objectivity is not about having an higher authority deciding what is right or wrong. Disney, like any entity, can be right or wrong. And seeing the objective difference of circumstances (that you still haven't rebutted at all) Disney was objectively right to fire Roseanne, but objectively wrong to fire Gunn.
>>
>>102263455
He didn't target a specific person.
>>
>>102258613
It had nothing to do with it
Johnny fucking deep was going through all the domestic abuse drama and divorce while filming another pirates movie, Disney said and did nothing
News about an old offensive tweet and they fire Gunn immediately?This is fishy
Disney probably had Gunn contract on the sight before all of this happened, when big names get fired it’s not for what they did, that’s only the excuse they use
The retards trying to use this event for “le epic political war” are the real idiots
>>
>>102263532
Yeah all those 60 posters woohoo, it's sad how you're still going on about the actors forming a united front to #resistthemouse
>>
>>102263561
But keeping posting "Roseanne=Gunn" despite having been proved wrong repeatedly is not sad at all. Got it.
>>
>>102263418
>Says you, objectively and with bias. Disney said otherwise, so if this is based on objectivity, its not your place to decide, it was Disneys.
Disney is biased in their self interest and image, they're probably not so much concerned with the exact ethics. They're not going to base their decision off what is "right," only on what guarantees them the most money.
>>
>>102263554
It's possible that someone at Disney heard "pedo" and fired him in a panic, before really understanding the situation. They fired him REALLY fucking fast, after all.
>>
>>102258451
They should just write them all out in Disneys Marvels Avengers Infinity War part 2
>>
>>102261493
I didn't realize Cernovich was considered a feminist now.
>>
>>102263532
You understand that the only argument you have put forward is that my take on it is wrong, and my points are wrong on the merit that you said so.

So I'll leave it at this. The whole debacle will be settled in the court of public opinion. Disney recognised that as a losing battle, and cut it loose. Whether you think it was justified amounts to very little, as you are innately biased in opinion.

I am 100% unbiased. No one should be fired over words, no matter who it offends, period. Words are meaningless unless you react to them.
>>
>>102263650
Right and wrong are subjective, so this sentiment is pointless.
>>
>>102263607
Yeah people do it to piss (you) off since you're in every thread and you reply to it every time, hell you probably make the threads at this point, how many days have you been arguing in earnest about how wrong Gunn being fired was and how Disney is morally obligated to take him back and the united front?
>>
>>102263662
>You understand that the only argument you have put forward is that my take on it is wrong
Wrong. Here are the points I brought in the first place.>>102261742
>Roseanne:
>-insulted an actual, exsiting half-black person, saying she was the offspring of Islam radicals and ape
>-did it recently
>-while working Disney
>-when she was making apology for what she did, retweeted the same days twitts saying she did nothing wrong

>Gunn:
>-made shocking jokes about non-existing person
>-ten years ago
>-while not working for Disney
>-sincerely apologised several times.

>and my points are wrong on the merit that you said so.
Incorrect. What I have said about you is that you keep ignoring those points.
>So I'll leave it at this.
And you keep doing so rather than trying to prove they are wrong or that they can't be used.

>No one should be fired over words, no matter who it offends, period.
I am pretty sure insulting your boss is a valid reason to be fired.
>>
>>102263697
>hell you probably make the threads at this point
I actually don't.
>how many days have you been arguing in earnest about how wrong Gunn being fired was and how Disney is morally obligated to take him back and the united front?
How many days have you been posintg about how the left is hypocrite with Gunn's firing?
>>
>>102263748
That would be up to my boss, like it was for Gunn. Not a twitter mob
>>
>>102263763
I took a break on the weekend, had shit to do, will take a break this weekend too.

Ask yourself this: Are all the people replying to me shitposting me into oblivion because they know there's no going back for both Rosseanne and Gunn, while I'm taking this very seriously?
>>
>>102263768
Except Roseanne and Gunn's fate was decided by their boss, not by the twitter mob. So, it's not a relevant point.
>>
>>102263861
>I took a break on the weekend, had shit to do, will take a break this weekend too.
And I hadn't got into that argument for a week, up until today.
>>
He's just going to direct it silently like he did half of Infinity War.
>>
>>102263899
And are you taking this seriously? Are you honestly hurt that a corporation fired a director? Do you think it's wrong? Do you care?
>>
>>102263960
As seriously as that other anon.
>>
>>102263971
which one? point him to me
>>
>>102263956
>like he did half of Infinity War.
Source.
>>
>>102263886
So you admit that all the social media defending of Gunn isn't relevant and Disney had every right to make the call they did? Or is the twitter mob allowed to decide this for Disney?
>>
>>102263988
Just watch the movie. The Wakanda shit is all the same tired Russo brothers cinematography, but the space stuff is straight Gunn.
>>
>>102264004
>So you admit that all the social media defending of Gunn isn't relevant
Anon. Do you know how to read? Social media defending or attacking anyone has NEVER BEEN PART OF THE POINTS.
You keep ignoring the core arguments while making up ones no one here are using.

Disney being right or wrong has nothing to do with he amount of people supporting one side or an other. They are right or wrong independently of that factor.

I thought you had said you were done and were leaving, but I see you are still keeping up. And at the same time, you prefer to ignore objective facts and keep complaining about mob rules no one here is using.
>>
>>102264059
I thought It was because of chris hemsworth who insited on preserving the character development of Thor 3. You could make the same argument that Taika Waititi was secretly writing Infinity War too.

Or even make the argument that Joss Whedon was secretly directing the fight scenes on titan.
>>
>>102262346
>not actual rapist Cernovich and your fellow /pol/ subhumans
2 retardedly wrong statement in one post as expected of your average c/o/mb retards.
>>
File: 1.png (842 KB, 994x498)
842 KB
842 KB PNG
>>102258451
They'll still use his script, but someone else will direct. Much like Ant Man.
>>
>>102260282
I literally had a 45-minute argument defending GotG
t. 136 IQ
>>
>>102264111
Taika Waititi was reportedly working on IW, but there's nothing in that movie to suggest Whedon was doing anything. The movie doesn't look like Whedon, the script doesn't read like Whedon, etc. I'm at least using some empirical evidence, instead of just saying whatever occurs to me in the moment.
>>
>>102264119
>Much like Ant Man.
Uh? No? Wright left because him an Feige couldn't agree on the script and wright had difficulty accepting he had to adapt the script to fit inside the MCU.
>>
>>102261298
So basically batshit retarded heresay that amounts to nothing as opposed to official press? Whedon is gonna be back anytime now.
>>
>>102264146
I thought he left because they wouldn't let him do a final rewrite
>>
>>102264135
>The movie doesn't look like Whedon, the script doesn't read like Whedon
I am talking baout the choregraphy of the fight, that is actually quite whedonest. Sat what you want about Whedon, he know how to do cool fights.

Anyway, I was half joking. My actual point was that the differnce in tone is more likely due to Chriss and Waititi than a secret involvement of Gunn.
>>
>>102258451
Without Gunn, the movie will probably suck. Both of the other two were his "vision" of the GOTG, both movies were decent enough to warrant a third.

Disney is just being disney, they saw a chance to free up some money by firing the guy and will bring in some hack to rip off his style for the third movie. It will probably do just fine since people pay to see Chris and Zoe anyway, but lets not pretend Disney actually gives a fuck about some old jokes. That was just a smoke screen they used so they could fire the guy without having to give the real reason.
>>
>>102264154
The scrip still went through several re-write after he left. Luis is almost completely not-Wright.
>>
>>102261742
Oh god its the retarded Gunnfag again, Watch as he tries multiple batshit retarded arguments completely plucked out of his butthole trying to defend Gunn in vain.
>>
>>102264181
>That was just a smoke screen they used so they could fire the guy without having to give the real reason.
So what do you think was the real reason?
>>
>>102264087
You dont have any objective facts, you have points that are entirely based on your own personal bias. Every point as to why one was justified and one wasn't can be refuted by simple disagreement.
Roseanne:
>-insulted an actual, exsiting half-black person, saying she was the offspring of Islam radicals and ape
I'm fine with this. The person exists and can defend herself
>-did it recently
Means nothing to me
>-while working Disney
Means little when you choose to not delete the past jokes. He never should have been hired
>-when she was making apology for what she did, retweeted the same days twitts saying she did nothing wrong
Doesn't invalidate her apology

>Gunn:
>-made shocking jokes about non-existing person
Just generic children. So I guess rape jokes and saying blacks are thieves is fine, I'm not targeting anyone
>-ten years ago
Meaningless
>-while not working for Disney
Should have never been hired over it
>-sincerely apologised several times.
I doubt the sincerity. Prove he was sincere


See? I can apply my own moral and personal reasonings to every point you make because they are personal beliefs. Stop projecting them as some form of defined metric for morality or justification.
>>
>>102264127
That's a sad use of your alleged intellect
>>
>>102264190
>Luis is almost completely not-Wright
so he's Wwrong?
>>
>>102261506
>9gag
>>
>>102262165
Corporations and private entities literally doesn't apply Free speech to a worker. So yes Gunn is retarded enough to not hide his retarded tweet.
>>
File: 1533738659335.jpg (476 KB, 1910x932)
476 KB
476 KB JPG
>>102258516
James Gunn is fine with James Gunn being fired.

Why doesn't everyone respect his wishes? Are you all saying he's stupid? That he doesn't know what he's talking about?
>>
>>102263290
Yes it is you buttmad ass, Fuck the whole franchise plot is about child abuse.
>>
>>102264254
then they should have never made Infinity War as that just had more child abuse
>>
>>102264195
Except all of those arguments are sound and still hold, despite you trying to pretend otherwise.
>>
>>102262346
Cool, I can do that too: Kate Kennedy and Bob Iger want, not only pedophiles, but actual rapists to be recognized for their sexual preferences. Do we want these supporters of sex criminals to be making films for children??
>>
>>102264310
>Do sex criminals want these supporters of sex criminals to be making films for children??
Gee, I wonder what the answer will be
>>
>>102264291
Because you say so?

You are delusional
>>
>>102264242
I'm not sure what you want to say.
>>
>>102263554
Notice that Depp's career is going shit fast and even Pirates isn't performing like it used to. Public opinion seems to be sinking on him and he was already in the crossfire over the Lone Ranger.
>>
>>102264242
Needs a Gunn edit
>>
>>102264205
>I'm fine with this. The person exists and can defend herself
You being fine with it doesn't mean her employer shouldn't fire her.
>Means nothing to me
There is a thing called prescription that is quite meaningful.
>Means little when you choose to not delete the past jokes. He never should have been hired
If you are going to be fired for bad PR, rule of thumb should at least be that you are being fired for something you did while working for the persons you are working for.
>Doesn't invalidate her apology
It literally does. When you apoplogy yet at the same time goes "look, there are people who say what I said was not wrong" it means you do not really think what you di was wrong.

>Just generic children. So I guess rape jokes and saying blacks are thieves is fine, I'm not targeting anyone
It's at least less aggravating than specifically targetting a person.
>Meaningless
It is meaningfull. the whole notion of prescription is based on this.
>Should have never been hired over it
Redemption and betterment should ,not be ignored.
>I doubt the sincerity. Prove he was sincere
You are the one accusing him of being insincere. You are the one who have to prove it. Then again, you are the same guy who think that someone who goes "Look at those people who say I did nothing wrong" while apologising is still sincere, so, I'd really be interested in the rules you go by.

>See? I can apply my own moral and personal reasonings to every point you make
Except to do so, you had to be in disagreement with the notions of prescription and attonment, who are deeply rooted not only in our justice system itself, but you had to be self-contradict about what make someone sincere or not. Sorry, dude, but you didn't really accomplished much there.

try again, and be more self-consistent, this time.
>>
>>102261495
This is likely the case, plus he was dumb enough to get into political twitter spats instead of ignoring that plague like an intelligent person.
>>
>>102264242
>Why doesn't everyone respect his wishes?
Because when a friend is down, even when he say to people to not help him, real friends still help him out.

And just because someone who has received an unjust treatment say to let it go, it's actually fine if there are people who will still fight injustice.

>>102264400
Not really.
>>
>>102264357
>Because you say so?
No, because you have provided no counter argument.
>>
>>102264205
>See? I can apply my own moral and personal reasonings to every point you make because they are personal beliefs.
Great, so you admit you are suing personal belief whereas the points of the original post are considered objective by the posters. That is some self-defeating posting.
>>
>>102264490
>he says while being offended on Gunn's behalf
Are you sure you're not Batista?
>>
>>102264521
>>he says while being offended on Gunn's behalf
Except I am not offended. So, no.
>>
>>102264521
>>102264400
The original cartoon was about people actively silencing other so they can speak in their name. No one has said Gunn to shut up.

Not to mention, the cartoon ws for letting people talk. using this cartoon to try and convince them to stop talking about the matter is disingenuous.
>>
>>102264458

>You being fine with it doesn't mean her employer shouldn't fire her.
You having a problem with doesn't mean they should
>There is a thing called prescription that is quite meaningful
Meaningful to who?

>If you are going to be fired for bad PR, rule of thumb should at least be that you are being fired for something you did while working for the persons you are working for.
It isnt a rule of thumb, its your opinion
>It literally does. When you apoplogy yet at the same time goes "look, there are people who say what I said was not wrong" it means you do not really think what you di was wrong.
You can interperet those actions however you want. Prove it was insincere

>It's at least less aggravating than specifically targetting a person.
Ok good, so all past rape jokes are ok. I guess you also agree michelle wolf deserves to lose her job

>It is meaningfull. the whole notion of prescription is based on this.
I decide what has meaning to
>Redemption and betterment should ,not be ignored.
So you accept Roseannes apology?

>You are the one accusing him of being insincere. You are the one who have to prove it. Then again, you are the same guy who think that someone who goes "Look at those people who say I did nothing wrong" while apologising is still sincere, so, I'd really be interested in the rules you go by.
I believe it was insincere. You have to convince me, because you are the one defending the man. I'm in the position of getting what I want
>>
>>102264458
Not him but this retarded to the balls as expected of Gunnfag. You're literally proving his point right by using your own preconceived judgement into your argument and not objective facts.

>You being fine with it doesn't mean her employer shouldn't fire her.
Same as Gunn
>There is a thing called prescription that is quite meaningful.
Prescription also applies to Gunn's cases as he's batshit retarded enough not to delete his old tweets sooner.
>If you are going to be fired for bad PR, rule of thumb should at least be that you are being fired for something you did while working for the persons you are working for.
How is this not especially applied to Gunn's cases you moron? He made retarded unfunny jokes just like Roseanne, working with a company known for cuddly family image, ergo he was fired for such case.
>It literally does. When you apoplogy yet at the same time goes "look, there are people who say what I said was not wrong" it means you do not really think what you did was wrong.
see>>102264242, Gunn himself said the firing was not wrong. Take it to Gunn and Disney.

>It's at least less aggravating than specifically targetting a person.
Ah yes the whole Individual>group shit that is the most batshit retarded of all your arguments. How does this make it less aggravating when Disney main consumer are both parents and kids you retard?
>It is meaningfull. the whole notion of prescription is based on this.
Your post defending Gunn make it quite evident that it is meaningless since you literally apply emotions and non argument supplement your post.
>Redemption and betterment should ,not be ignored.
Ah yes, Whedon and Silva is going back any minute now :^)
>You are the one accusing him of being insincere.
Disney is the one that fired him you retard. Gunn accepted it you retard.That is sincere enough.

>Except to do so, you had to be in disagreement with the notions of prescription and attonment
You don't even seem to care about that at all.
>>
>>102264360
He's saying that Gunn believes private companies have the right to fire people
>>
>>102264520
Calling something objective doesnt make it so. The points are all personally biased. You can call anything meaningful but in reality thats for the public to decide
>>
>>102261742
The thing people aren't understanding was that Disney could pretend they weren't aware of Gunn's tweets as long as no one pulled them up and the public at large was unaware of them. Once the butthurt brigade dragged them up it became a situation that firing Gunn was less damaging PRwise than keeping him on.

People need to understand that Companies are not your family or friends and they need to watch what they say under their names on any social media for their own protection.
>>
>>102264666
Yes but what does that has to do with anything? Nobody including Gunn is saying they didn't had the right to do it. But people can complain about the decision.
>>
>>102261493
Rabid feminists never forgive anyone for any kind of jokes and should not be considered at all.
>>
File: matt-taylor-the-verge.png (23 KB, 944x265)
23 KB
23 KB PNG
>>102264771
>>
>>102261429
Solo was fucked beyond redemption long before Ron Howard got involved
>>
>>102264645
>You having a problem with doesn't mean they should
this isn't about me having a problem with it.
>Meaningful to who?
To most existing system of justice.
>It isn't a rule of thumb, its your opinion
It's not just an opinion, it's the basic principle that what you did in the past shouldn't forever follow you. that's again, the principle of prescription.
>You can interperet those actions however you want. Prove it was insincere
Explain to me how someone saying "I am sorry for the wrong thing I did" while at the same time going "look at those people telling I did nothing wrong". Please, elaborate your interpretation.

>Ok good, so all past rape jokes are ok.
No, anon, logic does not work that way. saying something is "less aggravating" doesn't mean "everything is okay".

>I decide what has meaning to
Prescription has been part of our justice system for generation. you do not get to decided alo,n on that. Also, do you honestly consider that whatever you might ever say or do should forever carry the same eight no matter how long ago it was?
>So you accept Roseannes apology?
They have been proved to be insincere and she still think she did nothing wrong. So no. Also, it doesn't mean she is free of sanction either. You know, prescription and all.

>I believe it was insincere. You have to convince me,
Wrong. you are accusing him of being insincere. You have to provide objective elements that he is. I provided objective elementsthat Roseanne was, so have you to.

>You have to convince me, because you are the one defending the man. I'm in the position of getting what I want
sorry, man, that's not how logic work. You accuse someone of something, you have to prove it.
>>
>>102264895
>literally a convicted pedophile.
m8..
>>
>>102264895
proofs
>>
File: 780013.jpg (44 KB, 675x450)
44 KB
44 KB JPG
needs a 4chan edit
>>
>>102260117
Going with a "muh white supremacist" defense instead of focusing on the issue at hand tries to distract that he reasonably got fired. I truly don't care that you like to masturbate to Rocket Raccoon and shitty movie jokes, he publicly associated himself and his company with these jokes and professionally got removed from the company. If you are a accountant for a random large company you're still getting fired if you make these jokes publically despite no one ever giving a shit about you. You guys don't realize this is the standard for every employee of every company ever
>>
>>102264971
but muh dance off bro tho
>>
>>102264658
>Same as Gunn
indeed, personal feeling is not what determine whether or not someone should be fired.
>Prescription also applies to Gunn's cases as he's batshit retarded enough not to delete his old tweets sooner.
Prescription doesn't apply to Roseanne, as it is recent. Yes it apply to Gunn, as it was 10 years ago AND he apologised for it. also, Twitter is designed like ass, unless someone bring it to you, you can't delete all the old stupid shit you say on it. In the past some of his old twits were brough to Gunn and he deleted those.some of the twitts used against Gunn had to be found back with the way back machine.
>How is this not especially applied to Gunn's cases you moron?
Read again. Keywords being "WHILE WORKING FOR THE PERSON YOU ARE WORKING FOR" This clearly doesn't apply to Gunn.
>working with a company known for cuddly family image
He wans't working for thel when he did it. That's my whole fucking point.
>see>>102264242, Gunn himself said the firing was not wrong. Take it to Gunn and Disney.
Anon, we are talking about Roseanne's apology being incinsere, what you are saying there doesn't relate at all to the point.

>Ah yes the whole Individual>group shit that is the most batshit retarded of all your arguments.
Gunn's old twitt wasn't about a group but a non-specific non-existing person.
>Your post defending Gunn make it quite evident that it is meaningless since you literally apply emotions and non argument supplement your post.
? the fogg? There is zero emotion? Do you know what Prescription means? It means that if you have committed a crime and even been caught after certain length of time, you can not be prosecuted for it anymore. there is zero appeal to emotion, there.
>>
>>102265072
>>102264658
>Ah yes, Whedon and Silva is going back any minute now :^)
Whedon should have never been fired. The whole debacle after Ultron was ac omplete nonsense.
>Disney is the one that fired him you retard.
I wasn't denying that. that anon stated that his apology was insincere and I told him that he had to prove such statements if he wanted to make a point.
>Gunn accepted it you retard.That is sincere enough.
exactly.

>You don't even seem to care about that at all.
I at least take the time to read and understand what the other are saying. Anon, please it look like you didn't understood half of what I was saying.
>>
File: sssssss.png (27 KB, 768x295)
27 KB
27 KB PNG
Why is Gunn so racist?
>>
>>102258451

Why not have him do a short and test the waters? See what the reaction is and if people are on board than bring him back but honestly everyone is replaceable outside of Quill.
>>
>>102265185
>j-j-just give him a chance, please
stop
>>
>>102265238
You seem almost mad that he might come back.
>>
>>102265238
I'm more upset at MCUdrones treating the actors and directors like their friends and family, they're just movies, people get fired over stupid shit all the time, it's not a big deal
>>
>>102265280
?
I really don't see why you would be upset about that.

It's not that the fans treat them like family, it's that they enjoy what they do and want to see them keep doing.

It's like when you'd learn the Chef of your favorite restaurant is being fired and replaced. You can't help but worry that your Omellte du Fromage won't be as good as it used to. it's understandable.
>>
>>102264181

Fuck. Fuck, you’re right.
>>
>>102265072
>indeed, personal feeling is not what determine whether or not someone should be fired.
Of course not, its Disney prerogative that determines it. Right or wrong be damned.
>Prescription doesn't apply to Roseanne, as it is recent.
>Yes it apply to Gunn
Humongously retarded double standard lad and no its not 10 years ago, he literally made similar tweet 5 years ago and he still didn't delete that shit when enlightened Gorilla man called him out.
>Twitter is designed like ass
So here comes the part where you blame the tool and not the person. Deleting tweet is not complex, a 5 year old with dementia can do it. Ergo, Gunn can do it but he's retarded enough not to delete them all sooner.
>Read again. Keywords being "WHILE WORKING FOR THE PERSON YOU ARE WORKING FOR" This clearly doesn't apply to Gunn.
This especially applies to Gunn as he failed to delete the batshit retarded tweet before Gorilla man got a hold of them. Also he made similar tweet in 2013
>Anon, we are talking about Roseanne's apology being insincere, what you are saying there doesn't relate at all to the point.
Because you're the one retarded enough to believe that. Somehow one apology is accepted and the other one doesn't that is based entirely on your fee fee.
>Gunn's old twitt wasn't about a group but a non-specific non-existing person.
Great so when I joke about hanging niggers on Twitter I definitely didn't mean lynching black people :^)
>It means that if you have committed a crime and even been caught after certain length of time, you can not be prosecuted for it anymore.
You're comparing public law to a strictly corporate framework, it doesn't work m8 and its 10x more retarded if you think you can get away joking about retarded shit on open social media.
>Whedon should have never been fired. The whole debacle after Ultron was ac omplete nonsense.
Glad we agree that its just your personal bias and not fact that make up your post anon.
>>
>>102265084
>I wasn't denying that. that anon stated that his apology was insincere and I told him that he had to prove such statements if he wanted to make a point.
That anon didn't he just showed how redundant the comparison is. And you proved his points.
>I at least take the time to read and understand what the other are saying. Anon, please it look like you didn't understood half of what I was saying.
You didn't even know what you're arguing for kiddo.
>>
>>102265321
>a chef you have a more personal connection with as who makes less money vs a hollywood director who earns in the hundreds of thousands if not in millions
Celebrity worship puzzles me
>>
>>102265349
>Of course not, its Disney prerogative that determines it. Right or wrong be damned.
Just because Disney ha the right to do so doesn't mean it's justified.
>Humongously retarded double standard lad
Anon...
You do know the meaning of prescription, right?
Like, okay, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't. There is no double standard, prescription means that you can't be blamed for things you did years ago.
It apply to Gunn because it was years ago, it doesn't apply to Roseanne because it was recent and the sanction came immediately. In 5 years, I won't hold the stupid things Roseanne said against her. There is no double standard, there.
>and he still didn't delete that shit when enlightened Gorilla man called him out.
Whether or not he deleted those, prescription, still apply. And like I said, deleting ll the sytupid stuff you said on twitter is stupid. He had deleted some, as a mattter of fact, as the way back machine had to be used to fin them.
>Deleting tweet is not complex, a 5 year old with dementia can do it. Ergo, Gunn can do it but he's retarded enough not to delete them all sooner.
Deleting or not, prescription still apply.
>This especially applies to Gunn as he failed to delete the batshit retarded tweet
No. Prescription is not nullified because you failed to keep track of all the stupid stuffs you said. I a not blaming the tool, I am saying the deletion or not of the twits are irrelevant. It's still things that were said before he was hired and thus shoudln't be used as a motive for firing.
>>
>>102265349
>Because you're the one retarded enough to believe that. Somehow one apology is accepted and the other one doesn't that is based entirely on your fee fee.
No, it's not based on my feeling. I consider an apology sincere up until proven they aren't. The same day she apologised for the worng thing she did, she retwitted people saying she did nothing wrong, meaning she does not actully think what she did was wrong. thus her apology was insincere.
>Great so when I joke about hanging niggers on Twitter I definitely didn't mean lynching black people :^)
Anon, "less aggravating" doesn't mean "it doesn't count"
>You're comparing public law to a strictly corporate framework, it doesn't work m8 and its 10x more retarded if you think you can get away joking about retarded shit on open social media.
That a notion exist in the public law means there is some backing behind it and that it is fair to apply it when it come to jauge someone's action. Especially as 10 years ago, you could get away with joking about retarded things on social media.
>Glad we agree that its just your personal bias and not fact that make up your post anon.
We are not agreeing on that. You just said yourself that applying y logic on Whedon means he was unfairly treated and that's the case. You haven't showed any bias, there.
>>
>>102265443
Your brain puzzle me. It has nothing to do with celebrity, worshipping or how much a business is doing.

If someone is doing a good thing that you like, you want him to keep doing it and not be replaced. No one is being worshipped or considered a friend, there.
>>
>>102265443
People who make a point of nitpicking every non essential aspect of an analogy so they they can pretend they don't understand the core message of it are like people who make a point of nitpicking every non essential aspect of an analogy so they they can pretend they don't understand the core message of it.
>>
>>102258516
True but we fire people for a lot less anyways. Even if there its shit reasoning that produces a presedent it's still a presedent.
>>
>>102265602
>Just because Disney ha the right to do so doesn't mean it's justified.
But somehow it isn't justified when Roseanne made an offensive tweet then apologize for it. Retardation to the fullest
>You do know the meaning of prescription, right?
Do you in the context of law and public discourse? You seem ot mention that word hundreds of time but it doesn't apply at all in this case.
>In 5 years, I won't hold the stupid things Roseanne said against her. There is no double standard, there.
This is the most batshit retarded thing I've ever heard. Time has nothing to do with how a corporation handles its employees especially your standards and retarded personal opinion.
>Whether or not he deleted those, prescription, still apply.
Because he's buttfucking retarded enough not to delete them sooner. All of that shit was RECENTLY deleted and he's a fool for not handling proper personal data. A big fucking mistake if you're working in the company.
>Deleting or not, prescription still apply.
Unfunny pedo related jokes does not extend to the law but can fuck up your career. Simple as that.
>Prescription is not nullified because you failed to keep track of all the stupid stuffs you said. I a not blaming the tool, I am saying the deletion or not of the twits are irrelevant. It's still things that were said before he was hired and thus shouldn't be used as a motive for firing.
Oh for fuck sake did I get a slap on the wrist if I was making nigger jokes 5 years ago and failed to delete all of that shit when I was employed by a big company? No I don't, you're applying absolute moral reasoning here and not logic and facts. Again, he left those tweets in the open you retard.
>No, it's not based on my feeling.
> I consider an apology sincere up until proven they aren't.
Batshit retarded and contradictory this one is.
>Anon, "less aggravating" doesn't mean "it doesn't count"
Slightly less aggravating doesn't mean it counts either you nigger.
>>
>>102265676
They why dress up the argument with all this bullshit about morals and doing what's right and not caving in to the evil alt-right?
Just say:
>I like his movies, please bring him back
>>
>>102261086
Employee makes you look bad he has to go. Its gunns fault how the fuck do you not purge your Internet history as much as possible when going to work for Disney. You ca. Eliminate it completely but you can make it hard for trolls to find shit.
>>
>>102265616
>That a notion exist in the public law means there is some backing behind it and that it is fair to apply it when it come to jauge someone's action. Especially as 10 years ago, you could get away with joking about retarded things on social media
Great so everyone can say everything in a corporation like hang all niggers and I like to babbyfuck because the public law definitely say I have free speech so I definitely can say that in a corporation where I willingly give up some of my rights to work with a rich and popular company. Dumbfuck.
>We are not agreeing on that. You just said yourself that applying y logic on Whedon means he was unfairly treated and that's the case.
What we consider fair or not is entirely irrelevant, but your batshit insanity to justify Roseanne's firing while defending Gunn's is absolute brainlet using personal logic and morality instead of fact and logic.
>>
>>102258451
Just reedit the next Infinity War and keep em dead. Easy.
>>
>le they have to fire Gunn because he makes them look bad
Firing him made them look worse and that's why they're hiring him back.
>>
>>102265860
>Employee makes you look bad he has to go.
Yep, it's as simple as that. The ADL wouldn't keep an employee who joked about Jews going into ovens and Disney isn't going to keep an employee who joked about child rape. The only people upset about this are a small group of Marvel spergs and former WWE champion Batista. The bashlash from parents and families (i.e. Disney's core audience) would have been much worse if they had kept Gunn.
>>
>>102265922
Disney has incredibly strict morality causes. They have a reputation to keep.
>>
>>102266033
Bullshit.
>>
>>102265814
>But somehow it isn't justified when Roseanne made an offensive tweet then apologize for it. Retardation to the fullest
yes, anon It was justified.
Gunn's firing was justified, but Roseanne's firing wasn't. That's not retardation. That' something that has been explained already several times. The reason one is justified and the other isn't are listed there. >>102261742
>Do you in the context of law and public discourse? You seem ot mention that word hundreds of time but it doesn't apply at all in this case.
As prescription is a notion that already exist in law (which the respect of it is the bare minimum of what an upstanding person should do), it can be applied to other fields.
>This is the most batshit retarded thing I've ever heard. Time has nothing to do with how a corporation handles its employees especially your standards and retarded personal opinion.
That time has anything to do with how they handle their employee has noithing to do with it. You simply don't hold something against someone that was done years ago.
>Because he's buttfucking retarded enough not to delete them sooner. All of that shit was RECENTLY deleted and he's a fool for not handling proper personal data. A big fucking mistake if you're working in the company.
Why do you keep bringing up this deleting thing when it is irrelevant? It does not matter that it was deleted or not, what matter was when it was said.
>Unfunny pedo related jokes does not extend to the law but can fuck up your career. Simple as that.
It still doesn't mean it should be hold against him, especially as it was done before being hired.
>>
>>102265814
>Oh for fuck sake did I get a slap on the wrist if I was making nigger jokes 5 years ago and failed to delete all of that shit when I was employed by a big company? No I don't, you're applying absolute moral reasoning here and not logic and facts. Again, he left those tweets in the open you retard.
As a matter of fact, if you has showed you had changed and you do not hold those opinion any more, had already issued apology in the past and did it again, yes, there is a good chance you might get a pass. And if you didn't, I honestly think that you should. A society where every mistake you make can be forever hold against you is bound to fall into hollier than you attitude, hypocrisy and delation. This is why Prescription, redemption and forgiveness are sessential for it.
>> I consider an apology sincere up until proven they aren't.
>Batshit retarded and contradictory this one is.
Anon, explain how considering an apology being sincere until proven otherwise is self-contradictory?
>Slightly less aggravating doesn't mean it counts either you nigger.
Wut? Yes "Slightly less aggravating" literally means that Yes, it still fucking count.
>>
>>102266051
Disney never would have hired him in the first place had Horn and Iger known about all those jokes. They corrected an oversight.
>>
>>102265820
>They why dress up the argument with all this bullshit about morals and doing what's right and not caving in to the evil alt-right?
That's a different matter entirely. and is unelated. If a chef is victim of an injustice, even if he is the worst piece of cook, it's still perfectly normal to see people rise up to right the wrong.

If the chef was the best of cook, but was also a serial killer, people wouldn't try to defend him even if he make good food.

People consider Gunn has been treated unfairly, his demise was literally caused by a self proclaimed alt-right and people want to right a wrong.

i don't know for you, but I don't need someone being a personal friend to defend him.
>>
>>102265922
>firing a pedo makes them look worse than keeping the pedo employed
>>
>>102265895
>Great so everyone can say everything in a corporation like hang all niggers and I like to babbyfuck because the public law definitely say I have free speech so I definitely can say that in a corporation where I willingly give up some of my rights to work with a rich and popular company. Dumbfuck.
No, not what I said. Like I said previously, saying horrendous things while being under hire of a company is enough ground to be fired. A company should only fire you for what you did under their contract.

aLso, your replay to what you quoted isn't relavant at all. All it's saying is that stupid shit you did years ago shouldn't be usable against you forever, you can not replay by "oh that means I can do and Say whatever I want now". No, it does not do that. You tend to misunderstand what I say and follow it by insult a bit too frequently.
>but your batshit insanity to justify Roseanne's firing while defending Gunn's is absolute brainlet using personal logic and morality instead of fact and logic
That's wrong. I have been using facts and logic to which you haven't provided a single solid rebutals.

again, Gunn and Roseanne's firing are different because:

Roseanne:
-insulted an actual, exsiting half-black person, saying she was the offspring of Islam radicals and ape
-did it recently
-while working Disney
-when she was making apology for what she did, retweeted the same days twitts saying she did nothing wrong

Gunn:
-made shocking jokes about non-existing persons
-years ago
-while not working for Disney
-sincerely apologised times.
>>
>>102266200
>>firing a pedo
They didn't fire a pedo.
>>
>>102266206
Back in July Gunn called Jared Leto a pedo so "non-existing persons" and "years ago" is wrong.
>>
>>102266051
>Gunn's firing was justified, but Roseanne's firing wasn't. That's not retardation. That' something that has been explained already several times. The reason one is justified and the other isn't are listed there. >>102261742
And its being shown as a retarded justification as evidenced by here>>102264205. Pure retarded morality on your part.
>As prescription is a notion that already exist in law
And as we've known from all of this debacle that means jack shit when it comes to corporate framework and structure. Are you actually saying that I can now say nigger retards to black people in the company that I've worked with right now? For fuck sake get rid of your double standard.
>That time has anything to do with how they handle their employee has noithing to do with it. You simply don't hold something against someone that was done years ago.
So again Whedon and Polanski is gonna come back any minute now. Again he failed to delete his tweet his retarded tweet sooner and that is the end of him.
>Why do you keep bringing up this deleting thing when it is irrelevant? It does not matter that it was deleted or not, what matter was when it was said.
When it said and when you deleted all of that shit which proves my point you dumbass. You failed to answer me this simple question. Why did he not delete them?
>It still doesn't mean it should be hold against him, especially as it was done before being hired.
iirc he still made a similar tweet when he was hired by Disney but that one got deleted also. Still, time has nothing to do with doing retarded shit especially when you're a 40 year old who still does that shit.
>A society where every mistake you make can be forever hold against you is bound to fall into hollier than you attitude, hypocrisy and delation. This is why Prescription, redemption and forgiveness are sessential for it.
Again I've told you that prescription means jack shit in the corporate world.
>>
>>102266121
>and people want to right a wrong.
Bullshit, that's the dressing up the argument part, they just want their favorite cape director still around
>>
>>102266215
Cool, now go around explaining that to the hundreds of thousands of moms who might take his tweets out of context
>>
>>102266069
>I honestly think that you should.
Glad we agree again that its your fucking irrelevant personal opinion that make up most of your post and not facts and logic.
>Anon, explain how considering an apology being sincere until proven otherwise is self-contradictory?
An apology is an apology anon, you either accept it or not, you not accepting Roseanne apology means jack shit as I can definitely say that Gunn's apology also means jack shit since he didn't even do anything helpful with shedding light towards his pedo friends.
>Wut? Yes "Slightly less aggravating" literally means that Yes, it still fucking count.
Just because I said hang all the black people instead of hang all the nigger doesn't mean its suddenly not an offensive post you moron.
>>
>>102266206
>Like I said previously, saying horrendous things while being under hire of a company is enough ground to be fired. A company should only fire you for what you did under their contract.
Which applies to Gunn as he's batshit retarded enough not to delete his tweet.
>That's wrong. I have been using facts and logic to which you haven't provided a single solid rebutals.
If you did then you would realize that using your retarded emotionally-driven comparison is utterly irrelevant since both are fired for offensive tweets by Disney.
>>
>>102258451
it would be super easy to do since all the characters are currently dead
>>
>>102266245
>And its being shown as a retarded justification as evidenced by here>>102264205
No, it hasn't. Not only did he fail to rebute any of those points but he outright admitted to act in bad faith because so was I.

Meaning he actually admit he didn't provide objective rebutal, thus failing to prove I wasn't objective in the first place, which was the basis of his rebutal. So no.

Just to address his first point again. Him being fine or not is irrelevant, as instead, he should have tried to prove that targeting a non-descript noon-existing person is less bad than targeting an actual existing specific person. That was the point being made and the point he failed to rebut.

>And as we've known from all of this debacle that means jack shit when it comes to corporate framework and structure. Are you actually saying that I can now say nigger retards to black people in the company that I've worked with right now? For fuck sake get rid of your double standard
Anon, at this point, I think you don't know what a double standard is.
Prescription doesn't mean you can do anything you want now. I means after a while it shouldn't be hold against you.

Furthermore, if you actually think that the stupid shit peole say should be forever hold against them, you still can't accuse someone who believe that it shouldn't of double standard. Someone who believe in prescription and hold Roseanne's word against her but not Gunn isn't committing double standard.
>>
>>102266245
>So again Whedon and Polanski is gonna come back any minute now.
How long a prescription last depends of the gravity of he crime. Many system does not have prescription for rape or murder. but most of them have for thievery. I don't know why you are talking about Whedon, there.
>When it said and when you deleted all of that shit which proves my point you dumbass. You failed to answer me this simple question. Why did he not delete them?
I don't know why he didn't delte them, but whether or not they were deleted doesn't change that those shouldn't hold against him.
> Still, time has nothing to do with doing retarded shit especially when you're a 40 year old who still does that shit.
Yes it actually does, especially if you apologise for it.
>Again I've told you that prescription means jack shit in the corporate world.
Just because a coproration can do something doesn't mean it shouldn't be pointed out when they mess up. and that it means shit or not for corporation is pointless in the Gunn=Roseanne debate.
>>
File: 0.png (290 KB, 478x597)
290 KB
290 KB PNG
>>102266269
>Cool, now go around explaining that to the hundreds of thousands of moms who might take his tweets out of context
Sure, just show them that letter.
>>
>>102266589
Show them alongside the screencap of his tweets tho
>>
File: smugdad.jpg (70 KB, 570x576)
70 KB
70 KB JPG
>>102258635
>>102260013

I think it's interesting that nobody is really talking about Gunn's 10 MILLION DOLLAR payment.

It's like some people don't want to acknowledge that their big "victory" isn't going to stick.
>>
>>102266300
>An apology is an apology anon,
Not if it is proved to be insincere, then it isn't.
you either accept it or not, you not accepting Roseanne apology means jack shit as I can definitely say that Gunn's apology also means jack shit since he didn't even do anything helpful with shedding light towards his pedo friends.
So let me get this straight:
You consider that gunn is protecting pedo friends, making his apoplogy invalid, whil having nothing to prove it.
I consider Roseanne's apology insincere, because she showed off other people's opinion telling she did nothing wrong the same day she gave apology.
You doubt of sincerity is based on unproven accusation while my reason to doubt sincerity is based on events that have happened publicly and you think somehow, your reason to doubt is as valid as mine?
>>
>>102258635
>>102260013
>>102266629
Screencap this for posterity
>>
>>102266537
>Meaning he actually admit he didn't provide objective rebutal
Oh for fuck sake you retard, his entire post is to show how retarded and biased your argument are because you completely used a subjective point to make a comparison, thus he uses the same argument against you.
>which was the basis of his rebutal. So no.
You proved him correct in every step of the way by this very argument that we're having by saying retarded opinionated shit like
>I honestly think that you should
>A society where every mistake you make can be forever hold against you is bound to fall into hollier than you attitude, hypocrisy and delation.
>I consider an apology sincere up until proven they aren't.
Face it you're trying to save face now that you've proven to defend him valiantly just because you sick his dick fervently. I fucking guarantee you that you wound't even suck dick this much in the case of Sam Hyde.
>he should have tried to prove that targeting a non-descript noon-existing person is less bad than targeting an actual existing specific person.
We've already been through this, the individual>group justification shit doesn't work due to the sole fact that you can also get fired harder for making offensive tweets to large groups. People give less of a shit if Trump insulted LeBron and called him dumb but would be up in flames if he called them niggers.
>Anon, at this point, I think you don't know what a double standard is.
I can teach the whole world about double standards by just posting your post faggot.
>Prescription doesn't mean you can do anything you want now. I means after a while it shouldn't be hold against you.
Yes and he failed to do them because he didn't delete his tweet sooner you dumb retard. I'm gonna drill this into your head from now on.
>Someone who believe in prescription and hold Roseanne's word against her but not Gunn isn't committing double standard.
Yes they are, especially when he made a tweet accusing other people of being pedos recently.
>>
>>102266554
>How long a prescription last depends of the gravity of he crime. Many system does not have prescription for rape or murder. but most of them have for thievery. I don't know why you are talking about Whedon, there.
Again, public law does not at all to the corporate world in this context. Your retarded fee fee that it should is entirely based on opinions.
>I don't know why he didn't delte them, but whether or not they were deleted doesn't change that those shouldn't hold against him.
So you didn't even know his motives and context and now you want him to be forgiven without proof whatsoever. Dumbfuck to the max this one is.
>Yes it actually does, especially if you apologise for it.
Glad that Polanski is getting back to the US he dindu nuffin he apologize for that shit.
>Just because a coproration can do something doesn't mean it shouldn't be pointed out when they mess up.
A precedent has been set anon, your feeling won't change jack shit and if it does it will also apply to Roseanne.
>>
>>102264242
Yep, James Gunn fired James Gunn.
>>
>>102266700
>Not if it is proved to be insincere, then it isn't.
By what? Simply posting an off hand tweet that someone think her firing is ridiculous is enough for you to reject her apology? That's mighty retardedly double standard of you anon.
You consider that gunn is protecting pedo friends, making his apoplogy invalid, whil having nothing to prove it.
I consider Roseanne's apology insincere, because she showed off other people's opinion telling she did nothing wrong the same day she gave apology.
>You doubt of sincerity is based on unproven accusation while my reason to doubt sincerity is based on events that have happened publicly and you think somehow, your reason to doubt is as valid as mine?
Oh so now you admit that our opinion means jack shit in this context anon.
>events that have happened publicly
Mine too anon. After all he got fired :^)
>>
>>102266783
>>102266300
>Glad we agree again that its your fucking irrelevant personal opinion that make up most of your post and not facts and logic.
>You proved him correct
I didn't. But let's take it back to the root of the initial arguments.
We are not agreeing, I am using facts and logic.

Just quote each of the statement and tell why they are false.
-"recently" is not the same as "years ago"
-"targeting a specific existing person" is not the same as "targeting a non-specific non-existing person"
-"a company firing you for something you did while being under hire" is not the same as "a company firing you for something you did when you were still not working for them"
-"a insincere apology" is not the same as "a sincere apology"

Those are objective an rational facts. Come one, prove that any of those are wrong.

As for the sincerity of the apology, Explain to me how "someone apologising for something they said was wrong yet showing off people who say they actually did nothing worng is insincere" is false? How is this not an objective statement?
>>
>>102266783
>>I consider an apology sincere up until proven they aren't.
Anon, that's objective as fuck.
>>
>/pol/ got a director fired for cringey jokes because he tweeted anti-trump things
One board should not have all this power
>>
>>102266834
Except Not.
>>
>>102266783
>I can teach the whole world about double standards by just posting your post faggot.
Not really, The exposed value doesn't yield different result fot he same cases.
>You proved him correct in every step of the way by this very argument that we're having by saying retarded opinionated shit like
>>A society where every mistake you make can be forever hold against you is bound to fall into hollier than you attitude, hypocrisy and delation.
>>I consider an apology sincere up until proven they aren't.
None of those statement show bias nor doublestnadard, furhtermore, they are backed up by enough of a consensus to be considered as objectively agreed on rules.
>>
>>102263155
Waititi would be a perfect replacement as director, Ragnarok's best elements were it's comedy.
>>
>>102266933
The guy running Marvel is actually friends with Trump and determines how to run the VA from Mar A Lago despite having no official position.
>>
>>102263956
You guys should probably watch the Director's Roundtable extra from Infinity War, it basically laids out the amount of influence and involvement they all had in the movie, and while it's mostly Russo's, the GOTG segment was definitely pure Gunn.
>>
>>102263660
He isn't but his interest and the far left's align in getting Gunn out.
>>
The thing about fascists is that although they hold everyone around them including their enemies to an impossibly high standard they themselves have absolutely zero apprehensions to debasing themselves in the most vile manner possible. Hypocrisy is embedded deep into the whole ideology, starting from using democratic methods to achieve power with the aim to to later demolish said democratic methods. Blaming their opponents for violence and inflaming the general discourse are always made in bad faith, because again, the aim is to silence and denigrate your opposition, not uphold any kind of moral values. The best counter to fascism is to simply not let them play by denying them a platform. Attention in the form of fake outrage, dog whistling, harassment and populistic demagoguery is the foundation of fascism, the political equivalent of shitty fast food. Take away their spotlight and the movement is powerless.
>>
>>102266826
>A precedent has been set anon, your feeling won't change jack shit and if it does it will also apply to Roseanne.
>If you take take back someone you fired for good reason you also have to take back someone who was fired for bad reason
That is not how logic work, anon.
>>
>>102266783
>I can teach the whole world about double standards by just posting your post faggot.
ah ah ah, no.
>>
>>102264242
Becausr people still have their own opinions.
>>
>>102266908
>"recently" is not the same as "years ago"
His failure to delete his tweets plus accusing other people of pedophilia is recent
>-"targeting a specific existing person" is not the same as "targeting a non-specific non-existing person"
Him accusing Leto of pedophilia plus mentioning his friends and retweets is.
>-"a company firing you for something you did while being under hire" is not the same as "a company firing you for something you did when you were still not working for them"
He did not delete his tweets when he was employed by Disney thus nullifying your retarded point. You've yet to give reason why he didn't deleted his tweet sooner.
>-"a insincere apology" is not the same as "a sincere apology"
Completely subjective

>Those are objective an rational facts. Come one, prove that any of those are wrong.
I cannot find a more wrong statement on this board but hey an unironic retard will always think he's on the right :^)

>"someone apologising for something they said was wrong yet showing off people who say they actually did nothing worng is insincere" is false? How is this not an objective statement?
Because its you can't accept her apology because of some other tweet? That's dumbfuck as fuck anon.
>>
>>102266998
That's Marvel Entertainment does not have anything to do with Marvel Studios anymore.

That said he is the too dog of Marvel Comics but doesn't give a shit what they do as long as they save money and spend as little as possible.
>>
>>102266933
They can't repeat it though. Cartoon Network didn't care about some edgy skit Dan Harmon did years ago because they hired him to make edgy content.
>>
>>102267182
Oh and here I was wondering what happened to that, thanks for reminding me. They also tried to do this to Patton Oswalt (who actually jokingly called himself a pedophile in a series of contextual jokes) and didn't stick, and most recently they tried Sarah Jeong Ruth the same strategy, only to have Washington Post behind her. That's what happens when you overplay your hands and I'm glad it's not working anymore.
>>
>>102266927
>Anon, that's objective as fuck.
Then tell me what determines when an apology is suddenly not sincere?

>>102266976
>Not really, The exposed value doesn't yield different result fot he same cases.
Different opinions matter not to the result at hand.
>None of those statement show bias nor doublestnadard,
Its opinionated as fuck though you dumbfuck and that is entirely irrelevant in the context that we're arguing.
>they are backed up by enough of a consensus to be considered as objectively agreed on rules.
And the consensus agreed that firing Gunn was the optimal choice as objectively agreed by them. After all, pedophilia is not accepted whatsoever in the public space :^)
>>
>>102267071
Pot meets kettle. Whatever your retarded politic and movement is, its the exact same shit.
>>
>>102267071
Fucking this. It's going to take a while but that's how people like Cernovich and others end up silenced, by not playing into their game. Once they try to apply the "enemy tactics" you realize they have nothing to lose because they're already perceived as deplorable, while other people's livehoods are at stake. It's pernicious but the winning move here is not to play.
>>
>>102266589
When you march because one guy said something crude ten years ago while you sign petitions for another guy who said something lewd 8 years ago.
>>
>>102267087
>If you take take back someone you fired for good reason you also have to take back someone who was fired for bad reason
What determines good and bad in this case anon?
>>
>>102267224
>That's what happens when you overplay your hands
They didn't overplay anything, it's just that Disney has specific, strict standards of conduct that other places don't.
Meanwhile, some lefty organization got Info Wars pulled from a bunch of places as retaliation for Gunn, so righties are going to continue to be deplatformed and fired for whatever.
>>
>>102267113
>Him accusing Leto of pedophilia plus mentioning his friends and retweets is.
Him making pedo jokes about no one in particular to offend doesn't fall into the same category as calling someone out who has been repeatedly accused of underage grooming like Leto, and not by him but actual victims over the years. Don't be so disingenuous.
>>
>>102267224
m8, they're already successful in their plan to show the whole world that the left is full of batshit retarded hypocrisy by just showing the examples you mentioned.
>>
>>102267294
>calling someone out who has been repeatedly accused of underage grooming like Leto, and not by him but actual victims over the years.
Has he been arrested? No. But Gunn's good friend Huston Huddleston was, a few months ago.
>>
>>102267113
>His failure to delete his tweets plus accusing other people of pedophilia is recent
You still have failed to show how the dletion of his twets is relevant. And accusing other of being pedo is not what made him being fired. only his old twits have been used against him, so this is still irrelevant.

>Him accusing Leto of pedophilia plus mentioning his friends and retweets is.
His accusation on Leto are not the reason he was fired. If it was, he would have been fired when he did one years ago. We are focusing on the twits that fired him.

>He did not delete his tweets when he was employed by Disney thus nullifying your retarded point
It doesn't. You still haven't explained why deleting his tweets matter

>You've yet to give reason why he didn't deleted his tweet sooner.
I will not make assumption, but I know for a fact he has made a point of deleting every bad tweets that was brought up to him, way before the whole thing exploded. In case of ignorance, you give the benefit of the doubt.

>Completely subjective
No? and by that I mean no. By the very definition of the word Insincere is the opposite of sincere.

>Because its you can't accept her apology because of some other tweet? That's dumbfuck as fuck anon.
No, anon, not because of other tweets, but because she rewtited them to show the public that other think she did nothing wrong. If her apology were sincere, she would have either told them to stop saying she did nothing wrong, or would have simply ingored them. And again, you rely on insult while at the same time misconstruing what I said.

>I cannot find a more wrong statement on this board but hey an unironic retard will always think he's on the right :^)
Except it's objectively true, case in point, you didn't even try to prove those statement were false, you tried to prove that Gunn didn't belong to one of the two category of the listed statement. And didn't even succeed. You didn't prove any of those statement wrong.
>>
>>102267285
But Patton Oswalt is related to Disney as well, though not as intimately. He didn't suffer any backlash over the campaign.
>>102267308
Nah, no one buys into it when the guy behind the accusations has been convicted for actual rape and the people who rally behind him try to launch fake campaigns about "pedolove" in LGBT and shit like that to try and paint "the enemy" as morally wrong, while hiding under anime and frog avatars. No one with a brain sees things and says "wow yeah look how hypocrite they are!"
>>
>>102267321
>Has he been arrested?
You know someone can be publicly exposed of being guilty of wrong doing and yet still not be arrested thanks to good lawyer. Not being arrested isn't proof of innocence.
>>
>>102267321
>Implying someone is guilty of doing something only if they're convicted for it
Yep alright, sure.
>>
>>102267353
A lawyer doesn't stop you from getting arrested, that's the person you retain after you're arrested.
>>
>>102267294
>Him making pedo jokes about no one in particular to offend
So that shit about Mary Matthew is not something specific then. For Fuck sake.
>repeatedly accused of underage grooming like Leto
Just like Trump those motherfuckers still fail to come upwith any proof of any wrongdoing so yes you're one retarded motherfucker.
>>
>>102267371
I didn't say convicted, I said arrested. It sure is odd how Gunn calling someone who works in his industry a pedophile based on some vague allegations is good, but people calling Gunn a pedo based on years of weird jokes and a decade-long association with a convicted pedophile is bad.
>>
Why are people acting like it’s just the right disgusted . The things he said about lgbt characters where abhorrent and he should have been fired .
>>
>>102267323
>You still have failed to show how the dletion of his twets is relevant.
Seriously? you're going to die on this. On what Earth does the failure to delete offensive tweets does not result in the firing of said individual? Especially when you delete some of them but does not with the other one still standing.
>And accusing other of being pedo is not what made him being fired.
It is especially when you're buddy buddy with a pedo yourself retard.
>only his old twits have been used against him, so this is still irrelevant.
His old tweet where he doesn't delete them all you motherfucking retard
>His accusation on Leto are not the reason he was fired. If it was, he would have been fired when he did one years ago. We are focusing on the twits that fired him.
He made a recent one on top of keeping pedo tweets.
>It doesn't. You still haven't explained why deleting his tweets matter
See above retard
>I will not make assumption, but I know for a fact he has made a point of deleting every bad tweets that was brought up to him, way before the whole thing exploded. In case of ignorance, you give the benefit of the doubt.
>give the benefit of the doubt.
And you wonder why people call you retarded.
>No? and by that I mean no. By the very definition of the word Insincere is the opposite of sincere.
Sincere and insincere are both subjective concept you retard.
>No, anon, not because of other tweets, but because she rewtited them to show the public that other think she did nothing wrong.
How is this relevant at all? It proves my point even further. You think that a simple retweet of someone else who find the firing wrong is enough to disavow her apology but somehow Gunn being fucking silent before and after his firing at the fact that his pedo friend got arrested is A-OK? Retard to the max.
>Except it's objectively true, case in point
Keep digging that hole anon, you're ultimately saving face now I proved your points both retarded and wrong at the same time.




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.