This isn’t mutually assured destruction. This is just mutual destruction.

The “let’s fire people from the other side over words” movement gained its yet largest trophy: James Gunn, the director of Guardians of Galaxy and it’s sequel, both near-billion dollar blockbuster movies is fired over old tweets.

Let me start with his issue first. I agree that his old statements are far worse than anything we’ve seen in this “movement”. Several of them alleges actual acts of pedophilia without punchline or anything joke-like. Making things worse for him, his often-referenced buddy is a convicted pedophile. I agree with Ted Cruz that this guy needs to be criminally investigated. Police should already be searching all his computers for child porn and abuse-trained child psychologists should interview all the kids ever worked with him.

But until they find enough evidence to actually press criminal charges, he should have his job. Suspicion doesn’t mean guilt. Roseanne who surely did nothing wrong, merely bad-mouthed against a controversial politician should have her job. Jessica Prices should have her job. James Damore should have his job.

The above is my opinion, rooted in the belief in free speech and the idea that saying controversial things help us understand each other and finally find agreement.

However it’s not an opinion that if this keeps going, soon nobody will have a job, because there isn’t anybody who haven’t said anything controversial over the internet. Please note that the internet is 20+ years old and today’s norms are very different from those ages. Jokes of then are frowned upon today. Deleting anything is impossible, as many governmental and nonprofit organizations are archiving it. If you think that Russia doesn’t have everything ever said on the internet and Putin’s trolls aren’t digging over every liberal’s data, you are wrong. Same for US “intelligence community” and conservatives.

This isn’t mutually assured destruction, because those who start the campaign are not the same as the targets of the counter-campaign. Not Roseanne went after James Gunn. Shady and often outright repulsive agents like pizzagater Jack Posobiec and #CNNBlackmail Andrew Kaczynski are doing this. They answer to no one besides their own lynch mobs and can’t care less how many friendlies fall in the process. The targets themselves are usually innocent in these lynchings. OK, sometimes not, and then their fate is funny:

irony

Funny it is, but it doesn’t help with the fact that Guardians of the Galaxy 3, which would have surely added another billion dollars to the World GDP won’t be made (or will be made by an amateur and flop). The lynchers, emboldened by this scalp are surely seeking new targets, costing companies billions of dollars. This must stop and can only stop if the companies make a joint statement that nobody will be fired for non-work related stuff until found guilty by court in a crime.

If the internet haters would know that they can’t fire anyone, they would stop their campaigns which – besides destroying careers of individuals who spoke politically – damage brands they were associated with. I mean this is funny – unless you work on this movie as a simple employee:
galaxy2

.

PS: no matter how outrageous it is, one of the videos he got from the convicted pedo: 100 young girls touching themselves is too entertaining to not watch.

Author: Gevlon

My blog: https://greedygoblinblog.wordpress.com/

14 thoughts on “This isn’t mutually assured destruction. This is just mutual destruction.”

  1. I still can’t quite wrap my head around what exactly is going on around these resignations based on social media pressure. It is a bit too well-organized to be just troll attacks and it is a bit too wide-scale to be just a conspiracy by a small group of people. As a matter of principle, i’m obviously against firing people based on nothing but allegations, but i am also not the owner of a multi-billion dollar property built on nothing but illusions and fairy tales.
    The “all companies must come together” thing is probably not going to happen. When Guardians will flop, they won’t attribute this to the loss of director either (because large companies don’t like to feel that they rely on individuals).
    Also, there is actually a chance they won’t flop, and there are plenty of stories like that in the industry, too, putting the “this results in GDP loss” hypothesis into question.

    Like

  2. It doesn’t need formal organizations. People are already in social media bubbles where the same (fake) news run around unchecked. One posts the outrageous items and everyone shares.

    Like

  3. Disney (a brand aimed at children) clearly does not want to be associated with someone making pedophile-like ‘jokes’, because they don’t care about the net GDP that would be created by his next successful movie, but by the amount of that GDP flowing into their pocket. It was not the first time this has happened either, Marvel Heroes has had its license pulled due to allegations that the top execs of Gazillion were sexually harassing their female employers (they were also financially incompetent, this probably played a role too). And they even have extreme rules for the people working in their amusement parks. You simply do not mess with the Mouse, and if you dare smear or even slightly damage the brand, get ready for some deep penetration.

    What I am sure about, is that he did not get fired due to ‘ideology’. I would bet my left kidney that when he got hired, Disney did an extensive background check, and they already knew about the tweets. They were fine about it, as long as no one else did the same digging. The moment James Gunn became a PR liability, he got fired.

    “The above is my opinion, rooted in the belief in free speech and the idea that saying controversial things help us understand each other and finally find agreement. ”

    I don’t think anyone (rational) disagrees with that. However people do not exist in a void, and if their social surroundings deem it necessary to attach consequences to what you said, it’s also their right. Which is why online pseudonyms exist. 4chan became popular due to its anonymous status, there are tons of people saying offensive shit in Twitter all the time under aliases, your blog is updated by Gevlon and not by , and I am posting this comment under a fake name. But if you want to live ‘edgy’ and say weird things while your name is associated with a brand, better be sure first that the brand has your back (i.e. Falcon has a free pass because his bosses don’t find him offensive).

    This whole situation also sets a weird precedent, since in 10 years times stuff you are saying now on social media can come back to haunt you, even if they are not offensive by today’s standards. Falcon may be an edgelord now with the blessings of CCP, but his next employer may not be too happy about stuff he said on Reddit. I think this will lead a lot of industry professionals to simply leave the platforms or lead a very ‘vanilla’ online life. No idea if this is a good thing or not.

    Like

  4. @tithian: you are contradicting yourself. You claim that Disney knew about the tweets, just didn’t care until it became a PR issue. You know how it became one? When he posted something mean about Trump (which is his right) and the pizzagate-champion Chernovic went after him. So he was de facto fired because of ‘ideology’. The pattern:
    1) say something political
    2) the witchunters of the opposite party will dig everything you ever wrote
    3) you get fired for something that the company knew about and was OK with until it became trending

    Like

  5. @Gevlon
    “Police should already be searching all his computers for child porn and abuse-trained child psychologists should interview all the kids ever worked with him.”

    So you advocate for warrant-less searches, yet you have a problem with him being fired?….all based on the same information…a few twitter posts? Not trying to be mean here, but a lot of your recent posts are showing a pattern of you playing both ends against the middle. In an earlier post you argue that a corporation can, and should be able to do whatever it wants, yet in this post you claim you would like companies to develop language that would prevent them from being able to do that very thing. Why the turnaround?

    Like

  6. @Noguff: who said anything about a warrant. I believe his posts are more than enough to get a warrant. And yes, I do have a problem with a private company taking the mantle of a judge and hand out punishments for alleged crimes. More importantly, I do think that he should have directing job after he gets out of jail if he is jailed for child porn. He is good at directing, so let him do it to contribute to the society after he served his time! If someone is doomed forever for a crime, then why not hang every first offender?!

    The turnaround is because I never imagined that corporates would police politics or play criminal investigations. These things are completely alien where I live. My boss is a cardholding socialist party member, I’m an outspoken Orbán supporter and it was never a problem. Hell, former extreme-liberal party leaders are working as businessmen with nobody bothering them.

    What I see in the USA is North Korea/Iran level crazy to me. Seriously, the title 9 coordinators policing the sex life of students isn’t more strange to me than the Quran morality police of Iran.

    The turnaround is because I realized that there is a mass madness is going on and it can only be stopped by government/oligarchy action, the same way as not renting for blacks was banned. “Political person” is the new black.

    Like

  7. Right to free speech isn’t a right. It’s a limitation on the government to stay away from people’s speech.
    That’s why it has no meaning for anything other than government regulations.

    Our brains are hardwired to remember bad actors. You fool me once, I will never forget about it. Our memories are asymmetrical like that. That’s why a mere allegation is enough to warrant a pink envelope – even the slightest hint of wrongdoing risks the company image by association.

    It’s not right but that’s what it is.

    Like

  8. @Stawek: laws are invented exactly to fight “it’s not right but that’s what it is”. This is why it’s banned to kill your wife and her lover.

    Like

  9. @gevlon “I believe his posts are more than enough to get a warrant.” Really? Is there any evidence that he has actually possessed child porn? All we have are jokes in very poor taste. Even if he openly admits he is sexually attracted to children, which he has not, that in now way establishes that he is or ever has been in possession of child pornography. Being sexually attracted to children is not a crime and is not probable cause to search.

    As to your main point, it seems you are arguing for a free market restriction here. All these must be viewed skeptically, as you very well know that unintended consequences often creep in when you restrict the free ability of companies to hire and fire employees as needed. What you are proposing is that the government knows better than the company itself when a toxic employee’s actions are enough of a hinderance to warrant dismissal. I would argue that each company is in the best position to know that for itself and should make its own choice based on the situation and for its own self interest. What you propose would add a level of red tape and litigation to many firing decisions, making companies more hesitant to hire in the first place. All in the name of some theory you just basically cooked up with a few hours of thought. No thanks.

    To bring up an absurd example. Let’s say OJ Simpson was employed as a spokesperson for some company at the time of his alleged murder of his ex wife and her lover. OJ Simpson was failed to be convicted at the standard of “beyond reasonable doubt”, yet most people in the US felt (and I would argue accurately so) that he in fact committed the murder. It is quite possible the police pulled some shenanigans in the investigation (thereby injecting some reasonable doubt), so maybe the not guilty verdict was justified, who knows. But is it your position that the company hiring him is forced to keep him on? The point is, the criminal justice system is (1) not perfect in its accuracy, and (2) has a different standard for conviction that would be applicable in the civil arena, which is where we are dealing.

    Like

  10. It is easier to Lynch Mob someone than it is to gather factual evidence and try them according to Law. But this makes sense. The whole movement towards this form of intolerance is typical of those with low self-esteem and self-righteous mind sets (things found in abundance in Liberals here in the USA).

    Like

  11. Laws can combat some things but they can’t change human nature. We are hardwired to distrust people by default. Any association with a distrusted person is deadly for a company. No laws can change it.

    Laws are invented to protect people from their own stupidity, mostly. They reinforce some natural laws (like mutually assured destruction) and try to prevent groups from falling into tragedies of the commons and such. They don’t work if they aren’t strongly based in some pre-existing natural law.

    If I think a director is a paedophile I will not watch his movies. His producer will lose money. What law can make me go see his movie? What law can protect his job without ruining the producer (and taking his job)?

    Highly placed people have had character clauses in their contracts long before the current SJW madness.

    Like

  12. @Eatenbyagrue: he literally claimed that he masturbated on a film he received from a convicted pedophile. That’s enough admission. If you disagree, post this “joke” on your own social media and see what happens.

    I’m saying that everything outside of workplace is out of scope of an employer. So the guy can do ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING when not on the clock without that being firing offense. That includes crimes. Sure, when he won’t show up for work because he’s arrested for them, he can be fired.

    Yes, the company cannot fire OJ for the murder. However if they can get negative performance data (for example a focus group overwhelmingly say that they don’t believe the company statements when he do them), he can be fired. But only then.

    My point is that we should accept the criminal justice system even if it’s less than perfect instead of forming lynch mobs.

    @Sriojas: Gunn wasn’t lynched by liberals but by extreme right conservatives.

    @Stawek: we are hardwired to be aggressive towards unfaithful mating partners and their partners. But most people manage to not kill their cheating wife and lover.

    If the movies of the director start to flop, he can be fired. But it’s very possible that Guardians of the Galaxy 3 wouldn’t flop with Gunn because:
    * enough people believe that he was just joking
    * enough people can’t care less (I legit didn’t know his name)
    * enough liberals go to the movie just to stick it up to Trump

    Similarly I’m 100% sure that Roseanne show would’t flop because of the anti-Valerie Jarett tweet, because VJ is one of the least popular person among Trump supporters who are overwhelmingly watching Roseanne.

    Like

  13. @Gevlon
    I would agree with “just mobs on social media” interpretation if big organizations weren’t playing into their hands all the time. You yourself are pointing out that Disney is not an isolated case and arguing this point with other commenters.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s