Solo4114
Master Member
Ok, a few thoughts.
First, I think Disney reacted in a pretty predictable fashion. I was unaware of Gunn's history of posting this stuff, but I find it disappointing. I don't believe he's actually a pedophile, but I do think he posted some really awful, really stupid stuff on a medium that -- remember, kids -- IS FOREVER. I don't know the guy and I don't follow twitter in general, so I don't know whether and how he's changed since. Regardless, I don't fault Disney for canning him in the wake of this. What I do fault them for -- to the extent they've said anything of the sort -- is the feigned ignorance of his social media history. I'm sorry, but even back in the long-ago ages of 2010, social media was by no means new and employers were checking social media histories. A company like Disney, that is rigorous about managing its image and brand, would be committing malpractice if they failed to check the background of a director for one of their new multi-hundred-million-dollar films. I can only assume they were aware of the issue and...ignored it. I get why they removed him now, but any suggestion that this caught them by surprise is absurd.
Second, on the issue of "How is this different from Roseanne?", I think there are two key distinctions. First, there's the temporal issue. Roseanne wasn't fired for her tweet history. She was fired for a current tweet. That current tweet can also be read in the context of her tweet history to form an overall picture of someone who is at least very, very comfortable making racist "jokes" and, more likely, is perfectly fine making racist statements, which suggests at the very least some latent racism. If Gunn today tweeted something akin to his past, Disney would absolutely be well within its rights to fire him. I mean, they're still well within their rights to fire him, since there's probably some conduct clause in his agreements, but I don't think anyone would take any issue with it if he was fired after going on a twitter rant making pedophilia jokes like his older material. I think the prevailing response would simply be "Good."
So, this brings us to the second distinction which is the question of context. What is the context in which the awful jokes or statements were made, and what do we learn about Gunn as a person based on the totality of the information? Taken within context, I think there is good reason to believe that Gunn (1) would not make such jokes today (especially since, you know, he hasn't apparently), (2) would disavow the statements themselves while taking responsibility for having made them (which, from what I saw, he's done), and (3) does not actually believe or subscribe to any of what was said in the past. I didn't know Gunn's history of working for Troma, but having watched one or two Troma films, I can promise you that they are utter schlock, trash cinema, and they prominently feature not merely offensive material but gonzo offensive material usually delivered with an at-best-B-movie budget. Stuff that makes Roger Corman look like "high art" and the works of Coleman Francis seem like sober examinations of Cold War era politics. While the stuff I've seen is primarily from the early-to-mid 80s, considered in its historical context, it would be vomit-inducing and would probably have given Nancy Reagan a heart attack that killed her dead on the spot. It's not, like, Human Centipede levels of disgusting awfulness, but that's because they didn't have the budget for it and it's always delivered with a sense of irreverance and gonzo-goofiness. So if that's the primordial slop from whence Gunn's professional life was spawned...yeah, I can see how that would lead him to make intentionally shocking, disgusting statements on Twitter that he didn't personally subscribe to or take seriously.
But I also can see where he'd grow up over time, look at that era, and realize that his behavior was less "edgy" and more just immature and stupid. And a realization like that can happen a lot faster than you might think, depending on the person's experiences. I consider my own comments on multiple threads here in years past and even as recently as 2 years ago, and I'm just...in a different place. Much of my criticisms and frustration just...aren't there anymore. I look back on it and I own what I said, but that's not where I am today. Granted, I wasn't making pedophilia jokes, but still, I've grown. I would expect many people here have as well. I would like to think that the bulk of my current posts would also indicate that my views had changed on this or that issue.
With Gunn, I think (or at least, from what I can tell) it's something similar. We don't have recent posts from him to indicate or suggest or even raise the question of "But does he believe it today? Would he say the same today?" So, this literally becomes digging up someone's past to shame their present, and it's done after they've come out and both apologized for their previous words and -- by all accounts -- changed their behavior and outlook on the world. Should they be able to hide from their past? Of course not. They should acknowledge it and own it. But if they've grown beyond it and they've basically disavowed their past behavior, I think the question ultimately becomes "Should the past forever define you?" I think the answer should be "no" if you can reasonably determine that the person no longer believes or subscribes to what they said before.
But all that aside, I get why Disney did this. And again, remember kids, the internet is FOREVER.
First, I think Disney reacted in a pretty predictable fashion. I was unaware of Gunn's history of posting this stuff, but I find it disappointing. I don't believe he's actually a pedophile, but I do think he posted some really awful, really stupid stuff on a medium that -- remember, kids -- IS FOREVER. I don't know the guy and I don't follow twitter in general, so I don't know whether and how he's changed since. Regardless, I don't fault Disney for canning him in the wake of this. What I do fault them for -- to the extent they've said anything of the sort -- is the feigned ignorance of his social media history. I'm sorry, but even back in the long-ago ages of 2010, social media was by no means new and employers were checking social media histories. A company like Disney, that is rigorous about managing its image and brand, would be committing malpractice if they failed to check the background of a director for one of their new multi-hundred-million-dollar films. I can only assume they were aware of the issue and...ignored it. I get why they removed him now, but any suggestion that this caught them by surprise is absurd.
Second, on the issue of "How is this different from Roseanne?", I think there are two key distinctions. First, there's the temporal issue. Roseanne wasn't fired for her tweet history. She was fired for a current tweet. That current tweet can also be read in the context of her tweet history to form an overall picture of someone who is at least very, very comfortable making racist "jokes" and, more likely, is perfectly fine making racist statements, which suggests at the very least some latent racism. If Gunn today tweeted something akin to his past, Disney would absolutely be well within its rights to fire him. I mean, they're still well within their rights to fire him, since there's probably some conduct clause in his agreements, but I don't think anyone would take any issue with it if he was fired after going on a twitter rant making pedophilia jokes like his older material. I think the prevailing response would simply be "Good."
So, this brings us to the second distinction which is the question of context. What is the context in which the awful jokes or statements were made, and what do we learn about Gunn as a person based on the totality of the information? Taken within context, I think there is good reason to believe that Gunn (1) would not make such jokes today (especially since, you know, he hasn't apparently), (2) would disavow the statements themselves while taking responsibility for having made them (which, from what I saw, he's done), and (3) does not actually believe or subscribe to any of what was said in the past. I didn't know Gunn's history of working for Troma, but having watched one or two Troma films, I can promise you that they are utter schlock, trash cinema, and they prominently feature not merely offensive material but gonzo offensive material usually delivered with an at-best-B-movie budget. Stuff that makes Roger Corman look like "high art" and the works of Coleman Francis seem like sober examinations of Cold War era politics. While the stuff I've seen is primarily from the early-to-mid 80s, considered in its historical context, it would be vomit-inducing and would probably have given Nancy Reagan a heart attack that killed her dead on the spot. It's not, like, Human Centipede levels of disgusting awfulness, but that's because they didn't have the budget for it and it's always delivered with a sense of irreverance and gonzo-goofiness. So if that's the primordial slop from whence Gunn's professional life was spawned...yeah, I can see how that would lead him to make intentionally shocking, disgusting statements on Twitter that he didn't personally subscribe to or take seriously.
But I also can see where he'd grow up over time, look at that era, and realize that his behavior was less "edgy" and more just immature and stupid. And a realization like that can happen a lot faster than you might think, depending on the person's experiences. I consider my own comments on multiple threads here in years past and even as recently as 2 years ago, and I'm just...in a different place. Much of my criticisms and frustration just...aren't there anymore. I look back on it and I own what I said, but that's not where I am today. Granted, I wasn't making pedophilia jokes, but still, I've grown. I would expect many people here have as well. I would like to think that the bulk of my current posts would also indicate that my views had changed on this or that issue.
With Gunn, I think (or at least, from what I can tell) it's something similar. We don't have recent posts from him to indicate or suggest or even raise the question of "But does he believe it today? Would he say the same today?" So, this literally becomes digging up someone's past to shame their present, and it's done after they've come out and both apologized for their previous words and -- by all accounts -- changed their behavior and outlook on the world. Should they be able to hide from their past? Of course not. They should acknowledge it and own it. But if they've grown beyond it and they've basically disavowed their past behavior, I think the question ultimately becomes "Should the past forever define you?" I think the answer should be "no" if you can reasonably determine that the person no longer believes or subscribes to what they said before.
But all that aside, I get why Disney did this. And again, remember kids, the internet is FOREVER.
