When it comes to pedophilia or rape I disagree...

How about The Holocaust? Is it OK to try and make jokes about that? If I knew someone making fun of Holocaust victims I'd tell him to shut up, and if he didn't I'd knock him on his ass. Same holds true of pedophilia and rape. It takes a sick fuck to find those subjects even remotely funny in any way.

"Won't someone please think of the children?!"



You keep acting like making pedo jokes means someone's like a pedophile. The math doesn't check out. He said some dumb, offensive shit. It doesn't make him a pedophile. He's not a risk around kids.

That's debatable. I don't think everyone is offended by them to the same degree you are, or making the same leaps in logic as you.

You're saying it's his fault these things were dredged back up by people with a political agenda because he dared to speak his mind. You didn't say he shouldn't have done the stupid stuff in the first place, you said he shouldn't have been speaking in opposition to some real dredges of humanity.

Are you sure about that? Can you post the part of the policy that states that all previous posts, even before you got hired, could get you fired?

OK, so far I've been relatively restrained, but with this I have to say .... What the ever-loving fuck are you talking about? Where in all this mess has there been ANY actual threat to kids?! You're just going completely off the rails now. How the fuck does bad PR have the slightest thing to do with protecting kids - and from what do they need protection?

You may say the right words about Pizzagate man and his ilk, but I'm not buying that you believe those words.

I see you completely ignored my other two points, but whatever . . .

If by "he" you mean Cernovich - actually, it doesn't matter who you meant. What Jared did was a criminal offense, so what you're saying doesn't make sense.

"You said rape twice."

And now I'm done with this.

Depends on the joke. Making fun of the victims typically isn't funny. It's punching down. Pointing out the absurdity of the situation could be used for humor though.

But people can joke about the Holocaust. A comedy about the Holocaust, Life Is Beautiful, won best foreign picture.

Larry David got in some trouble making some Holocaust jokes last year. He didn't get fired from anything over them though:
https://www.bangor.ac.uk/music-and-m...comedian-34554

Again, though it's a matter of taste, and the difference between "I don't find that funny," and "I think you should be punished for saying that."

A Key and Peele sketch is clearly meant as comedy. And even then it's not a subject that should be taken lightly and entirely matters on the context of the joke. That's why Key and Peele can make a sketch like that but Julianne Hough can't dress in black face. The problem is with Gunn's pictures is there is no context. It just looks creepy and there is no joke.

Wait does Disney have a business relationship with Mike Cernovich?

I also don't understand this. Knowing about the tweets and pictures, I don't think Gunn is a pedophile anymore then I would assume that for the friends I have that joked about pedobear when that was a popular thing years ago, especially as far as the safety of children.

Maybe it's just a difference in the social environments we're around or you're not used to the "taboo" and shock humor that i've seen enough that i'm not as sensitive to these sort of things.

Speaking of the Holocaust, here's some pics of Roseanne Barr dressed as Hitler cooking some burnt gingerbread “Jew Cookies” from 2009:


https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/di...r-photo-shoot/

Disney was fine with those.

Making light of pedophilia certainly gives pedophiles cover. If people laugh at it, how bad can it really be, right? That could be their takeaway.

There are certain subjects that a lot of people don't just find offensive, they find it bordering on abhorrent and almost criminal (kind of like freedom of speech stops at inciting a riot, etc). Pedophilia, rape, The Holocaust - those things all fall in that category.

There is a reason why those subjects are considered to be, "Taboo."

Just because you didn't find some of Gunn's jokes funny doesn't mean they weren't clearly meant as comedy.

Well, you finally got there.

The context is that it was dress-up for a "To Catch a Predator" viewing party. It was mocking pedophiles. The context has been given previously in this thread, even if it was deliberately left absent from the original posts "exposing" the pictures.

But they shouldn't have been. Just because they made a mistake re-hiring Roseanne to bring her show back this year doesn't mean that she should be considered employable. She got fired because she can't help being who she is and Disney had enough.

Holy crap. I'll say it again what the hell is wrong with celebrities.

Yes

Yeah, but they look like they're having a little too much fun and making light of the subject. That's a big part of the problem. It's not a subject that is even remotely funny. I'd kill repeat pedophiles if I knew I could get away with it. They ruin lives and victimize children in ways that they NEVER get over. It is ugly and disgusting and flat out evil. It's not something to be made light of with a dress up party.

The problem is you're judging everything from what you find to be offensive and humorous. Disney doesn't have the luxury of doing that. Especially from their multibillion dollar Marvel franchise. Plus he's a director. He's not a comedian. I don't care about the actual context I'm talking about the perceived context. Personally I'm not offended, I think it's in really bad taste and just incredibly stupid to post crap like that but I'm not offended. I'm looking at it from Disney's point of view and I don't see how they can ignore something like that. I'm still not sure if firing him is the best thing for them to do and I think they did it far too quickly. But I can certainly understand why they did especially in light of the new pictures that have come up.

I don't think this video of Gunn has been discussed here either. It's pretty tasteless.

Also, speaking of blackface, somebody might want to tell Disney about RDJ's past...

Yeah, Disney can't just say, "Well, we're not offended, so our millions of customers shouldn't be, either."

They were screwed either way. They hoped that the tweets would never become public knowledge when they hired Gunn, but he kind of made sure that they would be by making himself the center of attention. And his, "Sense of humor," is very dry and comes across far more creepy than funny.

I probably wouldn't have fired him until after the pictures came out. That's kind of the tipping point for me. A very large percentage of Disney's customers won't find those pictures the least bit amusing, but will find them extremely offensive, if not flat out abhorrent.

"Could be" is a big jump in assumption that I would never leap to. But like I said, I imagine there's a big difference in the social environments you, I, and many others take part in and I can understand that there are many who find these sort of things offensive whereas I do not.

I mentioned this way earlier when the firing first came out, but I separate the attempts at shock humor, whether I find them actually funny or not, from someone just being heinous.

That's from Lollilove, a 2004 movie. So now we're digging to even older content, nearly 15 years ago, to try and justify his firing?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LolliLove

I mean, have people looked at his filmography from prior to GOTG?

And yet James Gunn went 6 years without doing anything offensive. Disney hired him and he stopped with the offensive humor. If people can't help "being who they are," then the fact Gunn went six years without making those offensive statements meant he never really believed them in the first place.

But again like you said people have different environments and different levels of what they find funny. But where on that spectrum do you think the people that Disney caters too and depends on as a business lies on that spectrum?

Does it make it less offensive because that photoshoot is from "Heeb," a transgressive Jewish magazine?