James Gunn fired from Guardians of the Galaxy

[heyelander]

On the set of Deadpool 2, they needed a stunt double to do a motorcycle stunt, and the professional stunt double was unavailable... they needed a black person to do the stunt (as the actor in the stunt was black), so they convinced a black woman on the set to do the stunt. She died in the stunt attempt.

From what I read, they went out and hired a professional motorcycle racer who wanted the gig... they didn't grab the donut woman from the set and put her on a bike.

Tragic, but you're write up is a bit sensationalized. Facts not caring about your feelings and all...

[Teenwolf]

From what I read, they went out and hired a professional motorcycle racer who wanted the gig... they didn't grab the donut woman from the set and put her on a bike.

Tragic, but you're write up is a bit sensationalized. Facts not caring about your feelings and all...

Of course the studio put out articles to spin it to avoid lawsuit payouts! Glad you've adopted the corporate stance on it though.

"Hey, she WANTED to do it!" Sounds a lot like what Harvey Weinstein is saying these days about his victims.

[Mithrandir]

Of course the studio put out articles to spin it to avoid lawsuit payouts! Glad you've adopted the corporate stance on it though.

"Hey, she WANTED to do it!" Sounds a lot like what Harvey Weinstein is saying these days about his victims.

So basically if she had refused to do the job then she would have been fired and blacklisted from work in the industry I assume? Or something more nefarious would happen to her?

Of course I am not saying that the way things are handled in this instance or any other Hollywood instance is ethical, but instead of risking her life she could have just said no and taken the repercussions of losing her job. Not saying that is cool, but at least she would be alive.

[heyelander]

Of course the studio put out articles to spin it to avoid lawsuit payouts! Glad you've adopted the corporate stance on it though.

"Hey, she WANTED to do it!" Sounds a lot like what Harvey Weinstein is saying these days about his victims.

Even the articles that said she wasn't up to the task state that she was brought in from the outside to do it. They didn't grab some random african-american chick from the set and throw her on a motorcycle. She was a professional motocross racer.

I'm not even arguing that the studio did the right thing, it sounds like there were red flags that this professional racer wasn't up to doing the stunt. Maybe they did pressure here... regardless, your characterization of "they needed a black person to do the stunt (as the actor in the stunt was black), so they convinced a black woman on the set to do the stunt." is off. She was only "on the set" to do this stunt.

[Teenwolf]

Even the articles that said she wasn't up to the task state that she was brought in from the outside to do it. They didn't grab some random african-american chick from the set and throw her on a motorcycle. She was a professional motocross racer.

I'm not even arguing that the studio did the right thing, it sounds like there were red flags that this professional racer wasn't up to doing the stunt. Maybe they did pressure here... regardless, your characterization of "they needed a black person to do the stunt (as the actor in the stunt was black), so they convinced a black woman on the set to do the stunt." is off. She was only "on the set" to do this stunt.

Fair enough. Your characterization sounds accurate and mine clearly wasn't.

Thanks for admitting it's still a shady situation in terms of corporate liability though.

[senorsheep]

Barr used humor to make a sincere point. She was insulting a person for political reasons. She did it while employed for ABC. Gunn said stupid things not sincerely 10 years ago while not employed by Disney.

You are exactly right about that. These situations are not the same. James Gunn should not have been fired. However...

When factions of the political left weaponized political correctness - once a heartfelt plea for sensitivity towards minority populations - and started using it to shut down people and ideas they didn't like, they didn't fully consider the ramifications of making squeamish, easily manipulated entertainment corporations the arbiters of who can say what in the public sphere. Squeamish, easily manipulated entertainment corporations couldn't care less about contextual nuance. They care about massing audiences for their product, part of which means bending over backwards so as not to offend current and potential audience members. In this paradigm, squeaky wheels - left or right, well-meaning or underhanded - get waaay too much grease.

Weaponized political correctness worked well for the political left early in the game, but now the political right is catching on, and, as they always do, they are going to use one of their own prized political weapons - false equivalence - to turn the left's own rules against them. They are going to extract payback for Roseanne and other right wing celebrities they perceive as PC victims by pummeling guys like James Gunn and attacking his livelihood. It's not the same, it's not fair, and it's not right, but it's going to work like a champ, because squeamish, easily manipulated entertainment corporations don't care to draw careful distinctions between what Roseanne Barr did and what James Gunn did. They care about covering their asses by stomping out any public relations fires as quickly as possible.

Hopefully, once the scalps start piling up and everyone can see the madness of this trend, both sides will back off their chilling assaults on free expression before this really does become the new normal. I would much rather live in a country full of awful people making awful jokes about awful topics than a country where the most easily offended among us - or, much worse, those pretending to be offended - get to decide what the rest of us can say or hear.

[Judge Jude]

"Hopefully, once the scalps start piling up and everyone can see the madness of this trend, both sides will back off their chilling assaults on free expression before this really does become the new normal. I would much rather live in a country full of awful people making awful jokes about awful topics than a country where the most easily offended among us - or, much worse, those pretending to be offended - get to decide what the rest of us can say or hear. "

I have a hard time imaging how the genie gets put back in the bottle - but it would be nice.

[DMT]

You are exactly right about that. These situations are not the same. James Gunn should not have been fired. However...

When factions of the political left weaponized political correctness - once a heartfelt plea for sensitivity towards minority populations - and started using it to shut down people and ideas they didn't like, they didn't fully consider the ramifications of making squeamish, easily manipulated entertainment corporations the arbiters of who can say what in the public sphere. Squeamish, easily manipulated entertainment corporations couldn't care less about contextual nuance. They care about massing audiences for their product, part of which means bending over backwards so as not to offend current and potential audience members. In this paradigm, squeaky wheels - left or right, well-meaning or underhanded - get waaay too much grease.

Weaponized political correctness worked well for the political left early in the game, but now the political right is catching on, and, as they always do, they are going to use one of their own prized political weapons - false equivalence - to turn the left's own rules against them. They are going to extract payback for Roseanne and other right wing celebrities they perceive as PC victims by pummeling guys like James Gunn and attacking his livelihood. It's not the same, it's not fair, and it's not right, but it's going to work like a champ, because squeamish, easily manipulated entertainment corporations don't care to draw careful distinctions between what Roseanne Barr did and what James Gunn did. They care about covering their asses by stomping out any public relations fires as quickly as possible.

Hopefully, once the scalps start piling up and everyone can see the madness of this trend, both sides will back off their chilling assaults on free expression before this really does become the new normal. I would much rather live in a country full of awful people making awful jokes about awful topics than a country where the most easily offended among us - or, much worse, those pretending to be offended - get to decide what the rest of us can say or hear.

[Teenwolf]

You are exactly right about that. These situations are not the same. James Gunn should not have been fired. However...

When factions of the political left weaponized political correctness - once a heartfelt plea for sensitivity towards minority populations - and started using it to shut down people and ideas they didn't like, they didn't fully consider the ramifications of making squeamish, easily manipulated entertainment corporations the arbiters of who can say what in the public sphere. Squeamish, easily manipulated entertainment corporations couldn't care less about contextual nuance. They care about massing audiences for their product, part of which means bending over backwards so as not to offend current and potential audience members. In this paradigm, squeaky wheels - left or right, well-meaning or underhanded - get waaay too much grease.

Weaponized political correctness worked well for the political left early in the game, but now the political right is catching on, and, as they always do, they are going to use one of their own prized political weapons - false equivalence - to turn the left's own rules against them. They are going to extract payback for Roseanne and other right wing celebrities they perceive as PC victims by pummeling guys like James Gunn and attacking his livelihood. It's not the same, it's not fair, and it's not right, but it's going to work like a champ, because squeamish, easily manipulated entertainment corporations don't care to draw careful distinctions between what Roseanne Barr did and what James Gunn did. They care about covering their asses by stomping out any public relations fires as quickly as possible.

Hopefully, once the scalps start piling up and everyone can see the madness of this trend, both sides will back off their chilling assaults on free expression before this really does become the new normal. I would much rather live in a country full of awful people making awful jokes about awful topics than a country where the most easily offended among us - or, much worse, those pretending to be offended - get to decide what the rest of us can say or hear.

Awesome post.

I often loathe slippery slope arguments, but this one is getting out of hand. However, that racist lunatic Roseanne is the outlier who firebombed her own career, a la Michael Richard's. Not much anybody could have done about her career suicide. Very different from most of those in the PC cull.

[Sour Masher]

You are exactly right about that. These situations are not the same. James Gunn should not have been fired. However...

When factions of the political left weaponized political correctness - once a heartfelt plea for sensitivity towards minority populations - and started using it to shut down people and ideas they didn't like, they didn't fully consider the ramifications of making squeamish, easily manipulated entertainment corporations the arbiters of who can say what in the public sphere. Squeamish, easily manipulated entertainment corporations couldn't care less about contextual nuance. They care about massing audiences for their product, part of which means bending over backwards so as not to offend current and potential audience members. In this paradigm, squeaky wheels - left or right, well-meaning or underhanded - get waaay too much grease.

Weaponized political correctness worked well for the political left early in the game, but now the political right is catching on, and, as they always do, they are going to use one of their own prized political weapons - false equivalence - to turn the left's own rules against them. They are going to extract payback for Roseanne and other right wing celebrities they perceive as PC victims by pummeling guys like James Gunn and attacking his livelihood. It's not the same, it's not fair, and it's not right, but it's going to work like a champ, because squeamish, easily manipulated entertainment corporations don't care to draw careful distinctions between what Roseanne Barr did and what James Gunn did. They care about covering their asses by stomping out any public relations fires as quickly as possible.

Hopefully, once the scalps start piling up and everyone can see the madness of this trend, both sides will back off their chilling assaults on free expression before this really does become the new normal. I would much rather live in a country full of awful people making awful jokes about awful topics than a country where the most easily offended among us - or, much worse, those pretending to be offended - get to decide what the rest of us can say or hear.

Very well put. And I agree with every point you made. I fear JJ may be right, though. I don't know how this genie gets back in the bottle.

Edit: Damn, I was late to the awesome post patting party! . I gotta remember that Good Post gif DMT used is a thing.

[B-Fly]

Punishing celebrities or TV networks or movie studios for "offensive" content on-or-off screen didn't start with political correctness, as that term is currently understood, however. It's just that it used to be violations of Christian/Puritanical mores - bad language, sexuality, violence, dissent - that drew the protests, boycotts, demonstrations and censors. The Supreme Court jumped in from the 1950s thru the 1970s to chip away at the ability for government to censor under obscenity laws, but it never stopped the free market from weighing in with condemnation, so content marketers have always had to decide whether to allow creators to push the envelope and risk blowback but generate buzz and find the consumers who want edgy content, or rather to sanitize content to reach the broadest possible audience, while taking advantage of shifting majoritarian morality/tolerance for language, sex, violence, political dissent, racial themes, etc. I guess the PC movement changed the game in that it was the first time the left pushed back against perceived "offensive" content more than the religious and/or conservative right, and maybe #metoo and the immediacy of the internet is making public the words and deeds of celebrities that used to be hidden, but the public urge to police "offensive" content is hardly new, nor does it find its origins in the "political correctness" of the left.

[senorsheep]

Punishing celebrities or TV networks or movie studios for "offensive" content on-or-off screen didn't start with political correctness, as that term is currently understood, however. It's just that it used to be violations of Christian/Puritanical mores - bad language, sexuality, violence, dissent - that drew the protests, boycotts, demonstrations and censors. The Supreme Court jumped in from the 1950s thru the 1970s to chip away at the ability for government to censor under obscenity laws, but it never stopped the free market from weighing in with condemnation, so content marketers have always had to decide whether to allow creators to push the envelope and risk blowback but generate buzz and find the consumers who want edgy content, or rather to sanitize content to reach the broadest possible audience, while taking advantage of shifting majoritarian morality/tolerance for language, sex, violence, political dissent, racial themes, etc. I guess the PC movement changed the game in that it was the first time the left pushed back against perceived "offensive" content more than the religious and/or conservative right, and maybe #metoo and the immediacy of the internet is making public the words and deeds of celebrities that used to be hidden, but the public urge to police "offensive" content is hardly new, nor does it find its origins in the "political correctness" of the left.

C'mon, that's as reality-bending as the Republicans who claim their party are the true modern-day civil rights champions because southern states were run by racist Democrats back in the day. In the here-and-now, your side owns the tactic of free expression takedowns, and now that you've cracked that door open, I fear a thundering herd of big, stupid elephants is about to crash through it and trample everyone and everything it its path. Traveling back in time to establish that "well, they did it, too" isn't going to stop it.

[B-Fly]

C'mon, that's as reality-bending as the Republicans who claim their party are the true modern-day civil rights champions because southern states were run by racist Democrats back in the day. In the here-and-now, your side owns the tactic of free expression takedowns, and now that you've cracked that door open, I fear a thundering herd of big, stupid elephants is about to crash through it and trample everyone and everything it its path. Traveling back in time to establish that "well, they did it, too" isn't going to stop it.

I am opposed to government censorship and even most private censorship of speech/opinion. I think college students are the worst offenders when it comes to efforts to censor debate and dissenting views, which to me is antithetical to the mission of higher education. And too many college administrators are too solicitous of that stuff out of fear of offending/alienating the students they're supposed to be educating, whose intellectual rigor they're supposed to be encouraging, and who they're supposed to be preparing for the real world.

I'm okay with social condemnation of offensive speech/opinion, and think that sometimes it is appropriate for there to be negative personal consequences when you spout hateful/offensive stuff. For example, I don't begrudge employers who, whether out of genuine values principles or out of self-interest due to the impact on the relationship of the employer with its customers/constituents/employees, suspend or terminate employees who express racism, sexism, religion-based hatred, homophobia, etc. But I don't generally support and won't generally participate in tarring and feathering. If offensive speech merits a consequence from an employer or a consumer or otherwise, it should be rational and proportional. In the vast majority of instances the best response to speech with which you disagree is engagement with an eye toward understanding and being understood.

I'm a big proponent of context and nuance. Let's have the discussions, but let's call out the gross generalizations, the straw man fallacies, the false equivalencies, the ad hominem responses to honest opinion and debate, etc.

I consider "liberals support suppression of free expression" to be a gross generalization/straw man fallacy. But as I noted with regard to academia, it is a problem (not just limited to academia), and I agree with you that liberals who embrace or purport to embrace civil liberties and reason should push back where they see suppression of ideas and debate and where they see tarring and feathering/rushes to judgment.

[B-Fly]

From Vox:

We write for an audience we think we know, in a vernacular they’ll understand, using reference points they’re familiar with. Six years later, our tweets are weaponized to an audience we don’t know, thick with terms they understand differently, with the reference points completely absent.

Twitter is a medium that rewards us for snark, for sick burns, for edgy jokes and cruel comments that deepen the grooves of our group. And then it’s designed to make the sickest of those burns and the worst of those jokes go viral, reaching far beyond their intended audience, with untold consequences. That’s good for engagement on the platform, but it’s often bad for the people it happens to.

https://www.vox.com/technology/2018/8/8/17661368/sarah-jeong-twitter-new-york-times-andrew-sullivan

#NeverTweet

[cardboardbox]

From Vox:

https://www.vox.com/technology/2018/8/8/17661368/sarah-jeong-twitter-new-york-times-andrew-sullivan

#NeverTweet

#NeverTweetIfYoureaPedophileorRapist