James Gunn Fired as Director of 'GotG Vol. 3'


I don’t think that’s what was being said; just that there are better people to be going up to bat for than millionaire film directors


what does redemption mean to you, exactly? personal forgiveness from family, friends, and loved ones, or full return to previous position of extreme influence as though nothing ever happened?


the discussion around “forgiveness” is treating this firing as some sort of calculated moral decision or the drawing of a line in the sand when it is in reality just the flailing of reactionaries trying to score wins wherever they can and a company that did a risk/benefit analysis on whether it loses them money or not to appease said reactionaries. disney as an organization is not saying james gunn is a Bad Person with this firing, they are simply saying that, to them, he is less profitable than he was before.

and let’s not act like his career is over either; he’s a white guy who directed two squillion-dollar movies for the biggest studio on earth, he’s gonna be fine. if you personally are ok with what he said measured against what his work since then might say about his character, then that decision is your prerogative to make as an individual. but speaking pragmatically, there is going to be zero lasting consequence to this action for gunn or for disney. the fallout will always trickle down to marginalized groups + creators, as actions like this continue to bolster the alt-right’s ability to enact its will in the public mainstream media space


With no context, sure. But white men in positions of power above a certain age are probably less likely to change their minds. I just feel like he should have known better at 41, and his wealth and influence means that he’s not really going to suffer, so it’s hard for me to be sympathetic.


While not a 1:1 comparison, I’m reminded of The Last Night developer and the shitty tweets he put out years ago and were subsequently found when the game was announced. His tweets weren’t jokes, they were indicative of his political and personal beliefs. I can’t be certain, but the conservative sphere of awful people were defending him back then seem to now be going after Gunn. They defended the TLN developer with the same rhetoric people are using to defend Gunn now (“it was years ago, people change”).

Again, lots of differences. Shitty politics are a lot harder to change and wave away than shitty jokes (not to say that you can’t hide shitty politics behind shitty jokes). The TLN developer also was a lot younger than 41 when he made his politics and leanings clear to the world. The whole thing is just another example of how conservatives don’t care how hypocritical they are.

Also, companies need to stop listening to a rapist that spreads hoaxs.


There’s a big difference between ten years and a few months, so I don’t think these are particularly comparable. Plus the guy in charge of The Last Night hasn’t actually changed in his stances if you just glance any any minor expression of his political beliefs.

Also, he was apart of G* merG *te.


I’m going to bat for Gunn for the same reason as I’m going to bat for Jessica Price and Peter Fries—to deny a win for the fascist playbook. The lasting consequence for allowing this decision to stand is emboldened targeting of marginalized groups and creators because it worked before on a larger target with a larger platform. The left should make it a mission to defend people targeted by social media harassment campaigns, regardless of what identities the target belongs to, because social media harassment campaigns are evil on an essential level. Declining this fight because Gunn happens to be a white guy smacks of Martin Niemoller.


But isn’t that just an opposite extreme? A lot of people actually do deserve to have their garbage beliefs brought to the public eye, just look at how Milo was taken down.

There’s a really complicated subject here we need to start seriously thinking about, because online campaigns are one of the few tools us marginalized people have to defend ourselves and remove bad actors. It is something that can be easily abused by bad actors - but so can everything in general. We need to think seriously on how to deal with harassment campaigns, but lumping all online action into this isn’t the right way to go about it.


In my view, there’s a difference between online harassment/doxxing/swatting (bad) and denying ad revenue/informing bosses/sharing videos (good).


So…it sounds like you’re saying we shouldn’t be out here trying to get racists who call the cops of black people fired.


I never said that. As I mentioned above, there’s a difference between the left’s and the right’s playbook with respect to online activism. One involves considerably less screaming graphical descriptions of physical and sexual violence at women and people of color.


I mean, yeah, the left and the right have entirely different ideologies, but “social media harassment campaigns are inherently evil” could just as easily apply to fascists as it does to the left. Moreover, comparing James Gunn to Jessica Price is a complete farce. One is a dude who will have a secure job making mediocre movies forever and the other is a woman in the games industry. James Gunn isn’t a marginalized creator. He will be fine.

As previously mentioned in this thread, the conversation re: hate mobs firing people has already been happening. For years. This isn’t new, and it isn’t special because it happened to James Gunn.


Exactly. It’s not special because it’s happening to Gunn. That’s why it’s not unique that we should defend him compared to anyone else who is targeted. Do you want firefighters to respond slower based on the identity of the victim?


Why is someone who has made millions of dollars worth standing with on the same level as creatives who create Patreon accounts so they can buy groceries?


Hey everyone,
Debate and discourse is a bedrock of this forum. But we also want people to engage in good faith discussion and realize the limits of online communication. Having the last word is satisfying, but can tend to escalate heated situations. The same is true about replying to a particularly heated discussion. Be aware of how your posts fit into the thread as a whole (such as whether you’re rehashing old points or getting trapped in a cycle) and how they work as part of a discussion (the Socratic method is effective in some cases, but not always effective in others, and, be sure to remain grounded in the topic instead of getting swallowed up in assumptions or abstractions.) This is a multifaceted issue and we appreciate the care many have shown here and want that to continue.

closed #60


Hey everyone, due to the direction of this thread and some interactions we’re closing it momentarily as we decide on our course of action and let it cool off.


Hey folks, we’re reopening the thread. We’d like to point you to our previous post and encourage that everyone keep this in mind in discussing the matter further, thank-you.

opened #63


I don’t really care about James Gunn and the cynic in me doesn’t believe he’s actually improved as a person rather he now has better handlers keeping him in line. Either way he’s going to be fine.

My big hope is that this leads to blow back on twitter. Cernovitch et al openly use it as an organising platform for their fascist campaigns (of which this was just a more high profile case) and twitter just …let them?

Silicon valley types pretty much define the parameters of speech for a large proportion of the world and they are totally unaccountable. I’m not saying bring twitter into public ownership (or may be I am) but maybe this can be a trigger for these discussions to be taken more seriously