Forums - Movies Discussion - Disney fires 'Guardians of the Galaxy' director James Gunn over 'indefensible' old tweets

o_O.Q said:
mZuzek said:

ok, care to elaborate on why?

Nah.



Around the Network
o_O.Q said:
Runa216 said:
what a wholly disheartening thread...

The fact that some of you genuinely can't tell the difference between actual racism and bad jokes about rape/pedophilia shows that some people will do anything to bolster their own confirmation bias.

how are you making the differentiation between what is a joke and what is racism/pedophilia/rape etc etc etc?

you've automatically eliminated explicit intent since both parties denied their intent was anything beyond humour

so break it down for me

I've seen others break it down for you in this thread so I'm quite certain that you're prepared to dismiss any claim I make without actually refuting my points. That said, I'll give you a few quick points. 

1 - Proximity and frequency: Gunn made a bunch of jokes a long, long time ago. They were bad, but he grew up after that fact and has spent the better part of a decade as an upright, kind, caring, sentimental guy. By changing his behaviour, moving on, evolving, and refining his personality, he proved through his actions that the jokes he made were jokes. Roseanne Said terrible things, got called out on it, made those 'jokes' again, got called out on it again, then continued making even MORE of the same terrible decisions AFTER publically announcing her 'allegience' to a group known to actually believe the terrible, racist things she did. 

2 - Intent: Gunn's tweets were absurd in their over-the-top nature. By being so outlandish and sickening they almost go full circle and are funny again (You know, like all those 'dead baby' jokes I'm sure you and your group of friends made back in high school). They're so over-the-top that there's no way anyone could take them seriously. Roseanne, on the other hand, likened a dark skinned woman to a monkey (which is a VERY REAL insult used by white supremacists to devalue the lives of non-whites), as well as making jokes about putting jews in the oven, a VERY REAL thing that happened in one of the worst times in human history. Offensive jokes can be funny, but her jokes were less 'clever/witty' and more 'meanspirited.' 

3 - Skill or Tact: Linked with the top two points, Gunn's jokes were actually funny. Terrible, for sure, but the fact that his actions spoke louder than words and he proved himself to be an actual good person allows us to look back on those tweets and chuckle. Nobody's gonna come to their defense given the nature of them, but the use of absurdism and actually, you know, having a punchline, gives them some comedic value. Not a lot, but some. Roseanne's are, again, just mean spirited and shitty. there's no clever wordplay, no setup and punchline, no depth or nuance, just 'hey, see how this black person resembles a monkey?' and 'look at how callous I am about gassing the jews!' If her statements were jokes (and I do believe she may feel this way), they're not funny, they're just offensive with no value beyond that. It'd be like if someone went to the theater to see Academy award winning film 'Moonlight' and calling it 'the nigger faggot movie'. THAT IS NOT OKAY. If you're going to say something offensive, a good rule is that it has to be counterbalanced by at least as much humour, nuance, and depth. It has to be at least as good as it is bad, preferably more. 

4 - History: This one's a bit more complicated. James Gunn, up to that point in his career, was known for shock humour. he literally made a career out of saying and doing outlandish things so this was in character but everyone knew it was just an act. Again, reaching back to the previous point about intent. George Carlin is another good example of a comedian who took great pleasure in saying things that, in a vaccuum, are horribly offensive but in the context of his stage persona were actually quite subtly nuanced and provocative. Context matters a lot. However, Roseanne's entire personality was never that of a person who made racist jokes. She was crude, sure, but the things she said were never in line with the persona she had cultivated and, again, mix that with the reality that she made it clear that she supports trump and other folks like him (Switching from a democrat to a republican) while making 'jokes' lauding the most terrible things the modern right has been doing lately and...yeah, it paints a wholly different picture. 

The issue here is that it seems you want to take just what the two people said and scrutinize it under a vaccuum. By taking only the base details to heart (they both said terrible things, both assured us they were jokes) and ignoring everything else around them such as their history, their actions as a contrast to the words, the quality of the 'jokes' and the nuances of offensive humour...well, they're so very clearly on opposite sides of the spectrum. 

So I return to the original statement: the fact that some people don't understand this stuff is actually quite disheartening to me. 

None of this is deep philosophy but instead the sort of thing I thought everyone innately understood. things are never as simple as black and white, as cut and dry as can be. There are shades of gray and blurred lines and context and the bigger picture to factor in when handling tricky situations like this. Literally nothing in this world exists in a vaccuum, which is the exact same philosophy we need to consider when discussing such strangely controversial issues such as Trans rights or Gay rights or Black Lives Matter or Women's rights. In an ideal world, in a vaccuum, it's terrible that there are gay pride parades or black history month or affirmative action....but we don't live in a perfect world. you don't get to just pretend that slavery didn't exist or that the wage gap isn't real or that gays were and still are under intense scrutiny. The reality is that all of these things happened or are happening, they do pain the world in a certain light, and there's a reason why minorities get special days and acknowledgements when the majority doesn't. 

There's no 'white-straight-male' days or occasions because white straight males have been in so much power for so long it would be disrespectful. 

I got off on a tangent a bit there but the over-arching theme is pretty consistent. Nothing happens in a vaccuum, it's foolish to only look at the surface level of a discussion to prove your points or to contrast the opposition. It's so common of a fallacy there's a well-known term for it: The Strawman Fallacy. By reducing and simplifying the opposition to re-brand it in a way not originally intended, it's easy to devalue the stance of another. 

By completely reframing (or eliminating the frame that is the reality of the situation) of James gunn's tweets, you're trying to assert a false equivalency to Roseanne's 'jokes'. You're subscribing to a few too many logical fallacies to be taken seriously (And yes, I've seen some of your other posts in this forum, I'm responding to a few of your more recent ones.) 

I went off on far too long of a tangent and for that I apolgize - especially since I know, based on reading your previous posts, that 90% of this is too nuanced for you to accept or understand or consider. That's fine, I just hope at the very least you read it all. If not, feel free to wallow in the reality that your stance is wrong and the fact that Gunn is rehired and Roseanne isn't is proof enough. I might not be some superior moral authority here, but at the very least now you'll understand WHY Disney made their choice on James Gunn. I can't claim to be the final say on what is and isn't ethical, but I've explained fairly thoroughly here WHY Gunn's and Roseanne's situations are NOT the same, no matter how much you want to conflate them. 



Runa216 said:
o_O.Q said:

how are you making the differentiation between what is a joke and what is racism/pedophilia/rape etc etc etc?

you've automatically eliminated explicit intent since both parties denied their intent was anything beyond humour

so break it down for me

I've seen others break it down for you in this thread so I'm quite certain that you're prepared to dismiss any claim I make without actually refuting my points. That said, I'll give you a few quick points. 

1 - Proximity and frequency: Gunn made a bunch of jokes a long, long time ago. They were bad, but he grew up after that fact and has spent the better part of a decade as an upright, kind, caring, sentimental guy. By changing his behaviour, moving on, evolving, and refining his personality, he proved through his actions that the jokes he made were jokes. Roseanne Said terrible things, got called out on it, made those 'jokes' again, got called out on it again, then continued making even MORE of the same terrible decisions AFTER publically announcing her 'allegience' to a group known to actually believe the terrible, racist things she did. 

2 - Intent: Gunn's tweets were absurd in their over-the-top nature. By being so outlandish and sickening they almost go full circle and are funny again (You know, like all those 'dead baby' jokes I'm sure you and your group of friends made back in high school). They're so over-the-top that there's no way anyone could take them seriously. Roseanne, on the other hand, likened a dark skinned woman to a monkey (which is a VERY REAL insult used by white supremacists to devalue the lives of non-whites), as well as making jokes about putting jews in the oven, a VERY REAL thing that happened in one of the worst times in human history. Offensive jokes can be funny, but her jokes were less 'clever/witty' and more 'meanspirited.' 

3 - Skill or Tact: Linked with the top two points, Gunn's jokes were actually funny. Terrible, for sure, but the fact that his actions spoke louder than words and he proved himself to be an actual good person allows us to look back on those tweets and chuckle. Nobody's gonna come to their defense given the nature of them, but the use of absurdism and actually, you know, having a punchline, gives them some comedic value. Not a lot, but some. Roseanne's are, again, just mean spirited and shitty. there's no clever wordplay, no setup and punchline, no depth or nuance, just 'hey, see how this black person resembles a monkey?' and 'look at how callous I am about gassing the jews!' If her statements were jokes (and I do believe she may feel this way), they're not funny, they're just offensive with no value beyond that. It'd be like if someone went to the theater to see Academy award winning film 'Moonlight' and calling it 'the nigger faggot movie'. THAT IS NOT OKAY. If you're going to say something offensive, a good rule is that it has to be counterbalanced by at least as much humour, nuance, and depth. It has to be at least as good as it is bad, preferably more. 

4 - History: This one's a bit more complicated. James Gunn, up to that point in his career, was known for shock humour. he literally made a career out of saying and doing outlandish things so this was in character but everyone knew it was just an act. Again, reaching back to the previous point about intent. George Carlin is another good example of a comedian who took great pleasure in saying things that, in a vaccuum, are horribly offensive but in the context of his stage persona were actually quite subtly nuanced and provocative. Context matters a lot. However, Roseanne's entire personality was never that of a person who made racist jokes. She was crude, sure, but the things she said were never in line with the persona she had cultivated and, again, mix that with the reality that she made it clear that she supports trump and other folks like him (Switching from a democrat to a republican) while making 'jokes' lauding the most terrible things the modern right has been doing lately and...yeah, it paints a wholly different picture. 

The issue here is that it seems you want to take just what the two people said and scrutinize it under a vaccuum. By taking only the base details to heart (they both said terrible things, both assured us they were jokes) and ignoring everything else around them such as their history, their actions as a contrast to the words, the quality of the 'jokes' and the nuances of offensive humour...well, they're so very clearly on opposite sides of the spectrum. 

So I return to the original statement: the fact that some people don't understand this stuff is actually quite disheartening to me. 

None of this is deep philosophy but instead the sort of thing I thought everyone innately understood. things are never as simple as black and white, as cut and dry as can be. There are shades of gray and blurred lines and context and the bigger picture to factor in when handling tricky situations like this. Literally nothing in this world exists in a vaccuum, which is the exact same philosophy we need to consider when discussing such strangely controversial issues such as Trans rights or Gay rights or Black Lives Matter or Women's rights. In an ideal world, in a vaccuum, it's terrible that there are gay pride parades or black history month or affirmative action....but we don't live in a perfect world. you don't get to just pretend that slavery didn't exist or that the wage gap isn't real or that gays were and still are under intense scrutiny. The reality is that all of these things happened or are happening, they do pain the world in a certain light, and there's a reason why minorities get special days and acknowledgements when the majority doesn't. 

There's no 'white-straight-male' days or occasions because white straight males have been in so much power for so long it would be disrespectful. 

I got off on a tangent a bit there but the over-arching theme is pretty consistent. Nothing happens in a vaccuum, it's foolish to only look at the surface level of a discussion to prove your points or to contrast the opposition. It's so common of a fallacy there's a well-known term for it: The Strawman Fallacy. By reducing and simplifying the opposition to re-brand it in a way not originally intended, it's easy to devalue the stance of another. 

By completely reframing (or eliminating the frame that is the reality of the situation) of James gunn's tweets, you're trying to assert a false equivalency to Roseanne's 'jokes'. You're subscribing to a few too many logical fallacies to be taken seriously (And yes, I've seen some of your other posts in this forum, I'm responding to a few of your more recent ones.) 

I went off on far too long of a tangent and for that I apolgize - especially since I know, based on reading your previous posts, that 90% of this is too nuanced for you to accept or understand or consider. That's fine, I just hope at the very least you read it all. If not, feel free to wallow in the reality that your stance is wrong and the fact that Gunn is rehired and Roseanne isn't is proof enough. I might not be some superior moral authority here, but at the very least now you'll understand WHY Disney made their choice on James Gunn. I can't claim to be the final say on what is and isn't ethical, but I've explained fairly thoroughly here WHY Gunn's and Roseanne's situations are NOT the same, no matter how much you want to conflate them. 

" then continued making even MORE of the same terrible decisions"

i've seen this said a lot and so far the only example i've seen is calling aoc a bug eyed bitch which is not racism... can you give an example of what you are talking about?

 

"Intent: Gunn's tweets were absurd in their over-the-top nature. By being so outlandish and sickening they almost go full circle and are funny again (You know, like all those 'dead baby' jokes I'm sure you and your group of friends made back in high school). They're so over-the-top that there's no way anyone could take them seriously. Roseanne, on the other hand, likened a dark skinned woman to a monkey (which is a VERY REAL insult used by white supremacists to devalue the lives of non-whites), as well as making jokes about putting jews in the oven, a VERY REAL thing that happened in one of the worst times in human history. Offensive jokes can be funny, but her jokes were less 'clever/witty' and more 'meanspirited.' "

you haven't actually posted anything here that shows her intent was to devalue black people

you've committed the fallacy of guilt by association

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/10/Ad-Hominem-Guilt-by-Association

something else you are not acknowledging here is that white supremacists declare that their intent is to devalue people, whereas barr has stated numerous time that hers was humour

 

"(You know, like all those 'dead baby' jokes I'm sure you and your group of friends made back in high school"

no i actually don't know, i've said offensive things as i'm sure everyone else has but i would never have found joking about raping children to be funny

looking back through some of his tweets i find none of it funny, just deeply disturbing

 

 

"but the fact that his actions spoke louder than words and he proved himself to be an actual good person"

how so? you know him personally?

 

" Skill or Tact: Linked with the top two points, Gunn's jokes were actually funny. Terrible, for sure, but the fact that his actions spoke louder than words and he proved himself to be an actual good person allows us to look back on those tweets and chuckle. Nobody's gonna come to their defense given the nature of them, but the use of absurdism and actually, you know, having a punchline, gives them some comedic value. Not a lot, but some. Roseanne's are, again, just mean spirited and shitty."

in your opinion, but that's like your opinion man... i'm quite sure some people found what she said to be funny

your subjective opinion about whether gunn or barr are funny isn't really relevant in addressing claims that her intent was to devalue black people

 

"If her statements were jokes (and I do believe she may feel this way)"

well this is interesting... am i to understand this to mean that you believe her intent was humour?

 

"she made it clear that she supports trump and other folks like him (Switching from a democrat to a republican) while making 'jokes' lauding the most terrible things the modern right has been doing lately and...yeah, it paints a wholly different picture. "

so again, guilt by association

 

"James Gunn, up to that point in his career, was known for shock humour. he literally made a career out of saying and doing outlandish things so this was in character but everyone knew it was just an act. Again, reaching back to the previous point about intent. George Carlin is another good example of a comedian who took great pleasure in saying things that, in a vaccuum, are horribly offensive but in the context of his stage persona were actually quite subtly nuanced and provocative. Context matters a lot. However, Roseanne's entire personality was never that of a person who made racist jokes. She was crude, sure"

as i said i don't think this was a racist joke because i do not think it can be reasonably shown that her intent was to devalue black people, but regardless she has always made jokes about people's appearance

people are only pretending that this is different now because the person was black and lets be real here her target actually did look like the character from the planet of the apes... does that mean that the person is a lesser person? well no unless you believe someone's appearance dictates their value

 

"ignoring everything else around them such as their history, their actions as a contrast to the words"

you have not provided evidence of roseanne being a racist throughout her career, you simply implied that she's likely to be a racist because she supports trump, which in itself is obviously ridiculous

 

"the quality of the 'jokes' and the nuances of offensive humour"

this is completely subjective, so there's no point in discussing it

 

"In an ideal world, in a vaccuum, it's terrible that there are gay pride parades or black history month or affirmative action"

why would you say that? 

 

"you don't get to just pretend that slavery didn't exist"

well i'm black so i'm sure that i'm more acutely aware of this than you are but thank you for the concern for my people

 

"or that the wage gap isn't real"

it is real but there are reasons for it, the most obvious one being that men and women are not the same thing and therefore have different ways of going about things

 

"I got off on a tangent a bit there but the over-arching theme is pretty consistent. Nothing happens in a vaccuum, it's foolish to only look at the surface level of a discussion to prove your points or to contrast the opposition."

we have two things to go on to ascertain the intent of someone

their stated intent and obviously you think barr is a liar and gunn is not so we throw that out

and we have their behavior and as i've said the only thing so far that you have mentioned is her support of trump and i personally don't think that shows that someone is a racist 

 

" It's so common of a fallacy there's a well-known term for it: The Strawman Fallacy. By reducing and simplifying the opposition to re-brand it in a way not originally intended, it's easy to devalue the stance of another. "

how have i done so?

 

"that 90% of this is too nuanced for you to accept or understand or consider."

well i expect people i am in conversation with to back their assertions and if they can't, i conclude that there's no rational basis for their arguments

why do you think we should be concluding these things on feelings rather than objective evidence?

 

" feel free to wallow in the reality that your stance is wrong and the fact that Gunn is rehired and Roseanne isn't is proof enough."

proof of what? that roseanne is a racist?

 

"but I've explained fairly thoroughly here WHY Gunn's and Roseanne's situations are NOT the same, no matter how much you want to conflate them. "

i was talking about how people are assessing intent in both cases 



Yep, I think I'm done here. I just read your response and you're deliberately skirting responsibility, moving the goalposts, remaining deliberately vague, and devaluing the nuance of the situation. I can see you're not interested in actually discussing the matter and are only interested in finding new and exciting ways to support your point without actually giving it value or depth.

Good day, sir (With the Alex Jones avatar; could you be any more transparent in your allegience and bias?)

YEs, that is ad hominem but it's after the fact and in conjecture with your other points, hence nuance and extenuating factors.



Runa216 said:
Yep, I think I'm done here. I just read your response and you're deliberately skirting responsibility, moving the goalposts, remaining deliberately vague, and devaluing the nuance of the situation. I can see you're not interested in actually discussing the matter and are only interested in finding new and exciting ways to support your point without actually giving it value or depth.

Good day, sir (With the Alex Jones avatar; could you be any more transparent in your allegience and bias?)

YEs, that is ad hominem but it's after the fact and in conjecture with your other points, hence nuance and extenuating factors.

Now you see why he's on my ignore list.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:

Now you see why he's on my ignore list.

That's a thing?



SpokenTruth said:
Runa216 said:
Yep, I think I'm done here. I just read your response and you're deliberately skirting responsibility, moving the goalposts, remaining deliberately vague, and devaluing the nuance of the situation. I can see you're not interested in actually discussing the matter and are only interested in finding new and exciting ways to support your point without actually giving it value or depth.

Good day, sir (With the Alex Jones avatar; could you be any more transparent in your allegience and bias?)

YEs, that is ad hominem but it's after the fact and in conjecture with your other points, hence nuance and extenuating factors.

Now you see why he's on my ignore list.

I do. It's like arguing with a wall that has absolutely no concept of self-awareness. 



o_O.Q said:
Runa216 said:

I've seen others break it down for you in this thread so I'm quite certain that you're prepared to dismiss any claim I make without actually refuting my points. That said, I'll give you a few quick points. 

1 - Proximity and frequency: Gunn made a bunch of jokes a long, long time ago. They were bad, but he grew up after that fact and has spent the better part of a decade as an upright, kind, caring, sentimental guy. By changing his behaviour, moving on, evolving, and refining his personality, he proved through his actions that the jokes he made were jokes. Roseanne Said terrible things, got called out on it, made those 'jokes' again, got called out on it again, then continued making even MORE of the same terrible decisions AFTER publically announcing her 'allegience' to a group known to actually believe the terrible, racist things she did. 

2 - Intent: Gunn's tweets were absurd in their over-the-top nature. By being so outlandish and sickening they almost go full circle and are funny again (You know, like all those 'dead baby' jokes I'm sure you and your group of friends made back in high school). They're so over-the-top that there's no way anyone could take them seriously. Roseanne, on the other hand, likened a dark skinned woman to a monkey (which is a VERY REAL insult used by white supremacists to devalue the lives of non-whites), as well as making jokes about putting jews in the oven, a VERY REAL thing that happened in one of the worst times in human history. Offensive jokes can be funny, but her jokes were less 'clever/witty' and more 'meanspirited.' 

3 - Skill or Tact: Linked with the top two points, Gunn's jokes were actually funny. Terrible, for sure, but the fact that his actions spoke louder than words and he proved himself to be an actual good person allows us to look back on those tweets and chuckle. Nobody's gonna come to their defense given the nature of them, but the use of absurdism and actually, you know, having a punchline, gives them some comedic value. Not a lot, but some. Roseanne's are, again, just mean spirited and shitty. there's no clever wordplay, no setup and punchline, no depth or nuance, just 'hey, see how this black person resembles a monkey?' and 'look at how callous I am about gassing the jews!' If her statements were jokes (and I do believe she may feel this way), they're not funny, they're just offensive with no value beyond that. It'd be like if someone went to the theater to see Academy award winning film 'Moonlight' and calling it 'the nigger faggot movie'. THAT IS NOT OKAY. If you're going to say something offensive, a good rule is that it has to be counterbalanced by at least as much humour, nuance, and depth. It has to be at least as good as it is bad, preferably more. 

4 - History: This one's a bit more complicated. James Gunn, up to that point in his career, was known for shock humour. he literally made a career out of saying and doing outlandish things so this was in character but everyone knew it was just an act. Again, reaching back to the previous point about intent. George Carlin is another good example of a comedian who took great pleasure in saying things that, in a vaccuum, are horribly offensive but in the context of his stage persona were actually quite subtly nuanced and provocative. Context matters a lot. However, Roseanne's entire personality was never that of a person who made racist jokes. She was crude, sure, but the things she said were never in line with the persona she had cultivated and, again, mix that with the reality that she made it clear that she supports trump and other folks like him (Switching from a democrat to a republican) while making 'jokes' lauding the most terrible things the modern right has been doing lately and...yeah, it paints a wholly different picture. 

The issue here is that it seems you want to take just what the two people said and scrutinize it under a vaccuum. By taking only the base details to heart (they both said terrible things, both assured us they were jokes) and ignoring everything else around them such as their history, their actions as a contrast to the words, the quality of the 'jokes' and the nuances of offensive humour...well, they're so very clearly on opposite sides of the spectrum. 

So I return to the original statement: the fact that some people don't understand this stuff is actually quite disheartening to me. 

None of this is deep philosophy but instead the sort of thing I thought everyone innately understood. things are never as simple as black and white, as cut and dry as can be. There are shades of gray and blurred lines and context and the bigger picture to factor in when handling tricky situations like this. Literally nothing in this world exists in a vaccuum, which is the exact same philosophy we need to consider when discussing such strangely controversial issues such as Trans rights or Gay rights or Black Lives Matter or Women's rights. In an ideal world, in a vaccuum, it's terrible that there are gay pride parades or black history month or affirmative action....but we don't live in a perfect world. you don't get to just pretend that slavery didn't exist or that the wage gap isn't real or that gays were and still are under intense scrutiny. The reality is that all of these things happened or are happening, they do pain the world in a certain light, and there's a reason why minorities get special days and acknowledgements when the majority doesn't. 

There's no 'white-straight-male' days or occasions because white straight males have been in so much power for so long it would be disrespectful. 

I got off on a tangent a bit there but the over-arching theme is pretty consistent. Nothing happens in a vaccuum, it's foolish to only look at the surface level of a discussion to prove your points or to contrast the opposition. It's so common of a fallacy there's a well-known term for it: The Strawman Fallacy. By reducing and simplifying the opposition to re-brand it in a way not originally intended, it's easy to devalue the stance of another. 

By completely reframing (or eliminating the frame that is the reality of the situation) of James gunn's tweets, you're trying to assert a false equivalency to Roseanne's 'jokes'. You're subscribing to a few too many logical fallacies to be taken seriously (And yes, I've seen some of your other posts in this forum, I'm responding to a few of your more recent ones.) 

I went off on far too long of a tangent and for that I apolgize - especially since I know, based on reading your previous posts, that 90% of this is too nuanced for you to accept or understand or consider. That's fine, I just hope at the very least you read it all. If not, feel free to wallow in the reality that your stance is wrong and the fact that Gunn is rehired and Roseanne isn't is proof enough. I might not be some superior moral authority here, but at the very least now you'll understand WHY Disney made their choice on James Gunn. I can't claim to be the final say on what is and isn't ethical, but I've explained fairly thoroughly here WHY Gunn's and Roseanne's situations are NOT the same, no matter how much you want to conflate them. 

" then continued making even MORE of the same terrible decisions"

i've seen this said a lot and so far the only example i've seen is calling aoc a bug eyed bitch which is not racism... can you give an example of what you are talking about?

 

"Intent: Gunn's tweets were absurd in their over-the-top nature. By being so outlandish and sickening they almost go full circle and are funny again (You know, like all those 'dead baby' jokes I'm sure you and your group of friends made back in high school). They're so over-the-top that there's no way anyone could take them seriously. Roseanne, on the other hand, likened a dark skinned woman to a monkey (which is a VERY REAL insult used by white supremacists to devalue the lives of non-whites), as well as making jokes about putting jews in the oven, a VERY REAL thing that happened in one of the worst times in human history. Offensive jokes can be funny, but her jokes were less 'clever/witty' and more 'meanspirited.' "

you haven't actually posted anything here that shows her intent was to devalue black people

you've committed the fallacy of guilt by association

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/10/Ad-Hominem-Guilt-by-Association

something else you are not acknowledging here is that white supremacists declare that their intent is to devalue people, whereas barr has stated numerous time that hers was humour

 

"(You know, like all those 'dead baby' jokes I'm sure you and your group of friends made back in high school"

no i actually don't know, i've said offensive things as i'm sure everyone else has but i would never have found joking about raping children to be funny

looking back through some of his tweets i find none of it funny, just deeply disturbing

 

 

"but the fact that his actions spoke louder than words and he proved himself to be an actual good person"

how so? you know him personally?

 

" Skill or Tact: Linked with the top two points, Gunn's jokes were actually funny. Terrible, for sure, but the fact that his actions spoke louder than words and he proved himself to be an actual good person allows us to look back on those tweets and chuckle. Nobody's gonna come to their defense given the nature of them, but the use of absurdism and actually, you know, having a punchline, gives them some comedic value. Not a lot, but some. Roseanne's are, again, just mean spirited and shitty."

in your opinion, but that's like your opinion man... i'm quite sure some people found what she said to be funny

your subjective opinion about whether gunn or barr are funny isn't really relevant in addressing claims that her intent was to devalue black people

 

"If her statements were jokes (and I do believe she may feel this way)"

well this is interesting... am i to understand this to mean that you believe her intent was humour?

 

"she made it clear that she supports trump and other folks like him (Switching from a democrat to a republican) while making 'jokes' lauding the most terrible things the modern right has been doing lately and...yeah, it paints a wholly different picture. "

so again, guilt by association

 

"James Gunn, up to that point in his career, was known for shock humour. he literally made a career out of saying and doing outlandish things so this was in character but everyone knew it was just an act. Again, reaching back to the previous point about intent. George Carlin is another good example of a comedian who took great pleasure in saying things that, in a vaccuum, are horribly offensive but in the context of his stage persona were actually quite subtly nuanced and provocative. Context matters a lot. However, Roseanne's entire personality was never that of a person who made racist jokes. She was crude, sure"

as i said i don't think this was a racist joke because i do not think it can be reasonably shown that her intent was to devalue black people, but regardless she has always made jokes about people's appearance

people are only pretending that this is different now because the person was black and lets be real here her target actually did look like the character from the planet of the apes... does that mean that the person is a lesser person? well no unless you believe someone's appearance dictates their value

 

"ignoring everything else around them such as their history, their actions as a contrast to the words"

you have not provided evidence of roseanne being a racist throughout her career, you simply implied that she's likely to be a racist because she supports trump, which in itself is obviously ridiculous

 

"the quality of the 'jokes' and the nuances of offensive humour"

this is completely subjective, so there's no point in discussing it

 

"In an ideal world, in a vaccuum, it's terrible that there are gay pride parades or black history month or affirmative action"

why would you say that? 

 

"you don't get to just pretend that slavery didn't exist"

well i'm black so i'm sure that i'm more acutely aware of this than you are but thank you for the concern for my people

 

"or that the wage gap isn't real"

it is real but there are reasons for it, the most obvious one being that men and women are not the same thing and therefore have different ways of going about things

 

"I got off on a tangent a bit there but the over-arching theme is pretty consistent. Nothing happens in a vaccuum, it's foolish to only look at the surface level of a discussion to prove your points or to contrast the opposition."

we have two things to go on to ascertain the intent of someone

their stated intent and obviously you think barr is a liar and gunn is not so we throw that out

and we have their behavior and as i've said the only thing so far that you have mentioned is her support of trump and i personally don't think that shows that someone is a racist 

 

" It's so common of a fallacy there's a well-known term for it: The Strawman Fallacy. By reducing and simplifying the opposition to re-brand it in a way not originally intended, it's easy to devalue the stance of another. "

how have i done so?

 

"that 90% of this is too nuanced for you to accept or understand or consider."

well i expect people i am in conversation with to back their assertions and if they can't, i conclude that there's no rational basis for their arguments

why do you think we should be concluding these things on feelings rather than objective evidence?

 

" feel free to wallow in the reality that your stance is wrong and the fact that Gunn is rehired and Roseanne isn't is proof enough."

proof of what? that roseanne is a racist?

 

"but I've explained fairly thoroughly here WHY Gunn's and Roseanne's situations are NOT the same, no matter how much you want to conflate them. "

i was talking about how people are assessing intent in both cases 



Runa216 said:
Yep, I think I'm done here. I just read your response and you're deliberately skirting responsibility, moving the goalposts, remaining deliberately vague, and devaluing the nuance of the situation. I can see you're not interested in actually discussing the matter and are only interested in finding new and exciting ways to support your point without actually giving it value or depth.

Good day, sir (With the Alex Jones avatar; could you be any more transparent in your allegience and bias?)

YEs, that is ad hominem but it's after the fact and in conjecture with your other points, hence nuance and extenuating factors.

"you're deliberately skirting responsibility"

can you give an example or will this remain an assertion?

 

"moving the goalposts"

can you give an example or will this remain an assertion?

 

"remaining deliberately vague"

well this is ironic 

 

"devaluing the nuance of the situation"

you are calling barr a racist because of one tweet she made... how is that for nuance? you seriously can't see your hypocrisy here?

 

" I can see you're not interested in actually discussing the matter"

because i disagree with you and you cannot actually debate your points in good faith i'm sure

 

"and are only interested in finding new and exciting ways to support your point without actually giving it value or depth. "

even though for the most part i've asked you questions and not made assertions? whereas all you have done is make assertions?(that you cannot back up) ok

 

"With the Alex Jones avatar; could you be any more transparent in your allegience and bias?"

i think alex jones has a good body, what does that have to do with anything being discussed here?



KManX89 said:
o_O.Q said:

" then continued making even MORE of the same terrible decisions"

i've seen this said a lot and so far the only example i've seen is calling aoc a bug eyed bitch which is not racism... can you give an example of what you are talking about?

 

"Intent: Gunn's tweets were absurd in their over-the-top nature. By being so outlandish and sickening they almost go full circle and are funny again (You know, like all those 'dead baby' jokes I'm sure you and your group of friends made back in high school). They're so over-the-top that there's no way anyone could take them seriously. Roseanne, on the other hand, likened a dark skinned woman to a monkey (which is a VERY REAL insult used by white supremacists to devalue the lives of non-whites), as well as making jokes about putting jews in the oven, a VERY REAL thing that happened in one of the worst times in human history. Offensive jokes can be funny, but her jokes were less 'clever/witty' and more 'meanspirited.' "

you haven't actually posted anything here that shows her intent was to devalue black people

you've committed the fallacy of guilt by association

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/10/Ad-Hominem-Guilt-by-Association

something else you are not acknowledging here is that white supremacists declare that their intent is to devalue people, whereas barr has stated numerous time that hers was humour

 

"(You know, like all those 'dead baby' jokes I'm sure you and your group of friends made back in high school"

no i actually don't know, i've said offensive things as i'm sure everyone else has but i would never have found joking about raping children to be funny

looking back through some of his tweets i find none of it funny, just deeply disturbing

 

 

"but the fact that his actions spoke louder than words and he proved himself to be an actual good person"

how so? you know him personally?

 

" Skill or Tact: Linked with the top two points, Gunn's jokes were actually funny. Terrible, for sure, but the fact that his actions spoke louder than words and he proved himself to be an actual good person allows us to look back on those tweets and chuckle. Nobody's gonna come to their defense given the nature of them, but the use of absurdism and actually, you know, having a punchline, gives them some comedic value. Not a lot, but some. Roseanne's are, again, just mean spirited and shitty."

in your opinion, but that's like your opinion man... i'm quite sure some people found what she said to be funny

your subjective opinion about whether gunn or barr are funny isn't really relevant in addressing claims that her intent was to devalue black people

 

"If her statements were jokes (and I do believe she may feel this way)"

well this is interesting... am i to understand this to mean that you believe her intent was humour?

 

"she made it clear that she supports trump and other folks like him (Switching from a democrat to a republican) while making 'jokes' lauding the most terrible things the modern right has been doing lately and...yeah, it paints a wholly different picture. "

so again, guilt by association

 

"James Gunn, up to that point in his career, was known for shock humour. he literally made a career out of saying and doing outlandish things so this was in character but everyone knew it was just an act. Again, reaching back to the previous point about intent. George Carlin is another good example of a comedian who took great pleasure in saying things that, in a vaccuum, are horribly offensive but in the context of his stage persona were actually quite subtly nuanced and provocative. Context matters a lot. However, Roseanne's entire personality was never that of a person who made racist jokes. She was crude, sure"

as i said i don't think this was a racist joke because i do not think it can be reasonably shown that her intent was to devalue black people, but regardless she has always made jokes about people's appearance

people are only pretending that this is different now because the person was black and lets be real here her target actually did look like the character from the planet of the apes... does that mean that the person is a lesser person? well no unless you believe someone's appearance dictates their value

 

"ignoring everything else around them such as their history, their actions as a contrast to the words"

you have not provided evidence of roseanne being a racist throughout her career, you simply implied that she's likely to be a racist because she supports trump, which in itself is obviously ridiculous

 

"the quality of the 'jokes' and the nuances of offensive humour"

this is completely subjective, so there's no point in discussing it

 

"In an ideal world, in a vaccuum, it's terrible that there are gay pride parades or black history month or affirmative action"

why would you say that? 

 

"you don't get to just pretend that slavery didn't exist"

well i'm black so i'm sure that i'm more acutely aware of this than you are but thank you for the concern for my people

 

"or that the wage gap isn't real"

it is real but there are reasons for it, the most obvious one being that men and women are not the same thing and therefore have different ways of going about things

 

"I got off on a tangent a bit there but the over-arching theme is pretty consistent. Nothing happens in a vaccuum, it's foolish to only look at the surface level of a discussion to prove your points or to contrast the opposition."

we have two things to go on to ascertain the intent of someone

their stated intent and obviously you think barr is a liar and gunn is not so we throw that out

and we have their behavior and as i've said the only thing so far that you have mentioned is her support of trump and i personally don't think that shows that someone is a racist 

 

" It's so common of a fallacy there's a well-known term for it: The Strawman Fallacy. By reducing and simplifying the opposition to re-brand it in a way not originally intended, it's easy to devalue the stance of another. "

how have i done so?

 

"that 90% of this is too nuanced for you to accept or understand or consider."

well i expect people i am in conversation with to back their assertions and if they can't, i conclude that there's no rational basis for their arguments

why do you think we should be concluding these things on feelings rather than objective evidence?

 

" feel free to wallow in the reality that your stance is wrong and the fact that Gunn is rehired and Roseanne isn't is proof enough."

proof of what? that roseanne is a racist?

 

"but I've explained fairly thoroughly here WHY Gunn's and Roseanne's situations are NOT the same, no matter how much you want to conflate them. "

i was talking about how people are assessing intent in both cases 

anytime you feel like making an actual argument you can feel free to do so