3 ms·

I do feel that there is a difference in the Gunn and Barr cases. The things Gunn said have enough distance to them that you could reasonably say that he learne

by bena 8y ago

I do feel that there is a difference in the Gunn and Barr cases. The things Gunn said have enough distance to them that you could reasonably say that he learned better since then. Firing him for something he said a decade ago seems off. Barr got fired for something she said that day. So I wouldn't say it's the exact same thing. What happened to Barr seems like punishment. What happened to Gunn feels more chilling. It's a world that will never tolerate or forgive a mistake. That "permanent record" your teacher warned you about has come to fruition.

naasking 8y ago
Of course there are differences, but the question is whether those differences matter. The issue at heart is policing speech according to arbitrary mob rules, and employing that as a weapon against those with whom you disagree. People love inciting the mob when it suits them, but the mob is fickle and cuts both ways. Gunn's poetic punishment for encouraging mob rule was to be cut down by it. And frankly, I don't see how recency is relevant to such matters anyway. Should a murderer who was never caught still face justice 30 years later? Does it matter that "he may have learned better by now"? Either forgiveness and compassion is a virtue and neither Gunn nor Barr should have faced harsh punishment more than a few sharp rebukes to demonstrate what they did wrong, or they both deserved what they got.
- bena 8y ago
  That's a false dichotomy. You are advocating for either letting people get away with anything or punishing people for life for a mistake. And let's not pretend saying words is the equivalent of murder or that what happened to either Barr or Gunn is the equivalent of the punishment faced by murderers. Murder is a far more serious crime than saying something insensitive. Even in the legal system, there is the concept of the statute of limitations. And it is different for different crimes. Forgiveness and compassion are virtues, but that does not lead to the conclusion that both Barr and Gunn should have been immediately forgiven for what they said. If Gunn had said what he had said the day before, then it would be a fair cop. But he didn't. The recency does matter. Gunn can legitimately say, "Yeah, I'm not proud of that. I know saying that is wrong now" and be convincing. It's been years. He's grown, he's learned. How much growing and learning can you do overnight?
  - naasking 8y ago
    > And let's not pretend saying words is the equivalent of murder or that what happened to either Barr or Gunn is the equivalent of the punishment faced by murderers. No, the point of the example was to illustrate that justice is not temporally dependent. While I agree and disagree with some of your points, I'm short on time, so I'll just focus on my main point which you seem to have missed: If you encourage mob justice, you deserve mob justice. A mob is not open to nuanced moral reasoning. Gunn was fully supportive of mob justice for those with whom he disagreed. Gunn therefore deserves the same treatment, and he got it.
    - bena 8y ago
      That presumes he wasn't sufficiently punished earlier. Also, in what manner is ABC a mob? ABC took no time at all firing Barr.
      - naasking 8y ago
        > That presumes he wasn't sufficiently punished earlier. Again, you're stuck in your own mindset of what constitutes justice. Clearly mob justice is not your justice. Gunn's view on Barr's firing is not the only example of his support for mob justice, just the most high profile. The mob makes its own rules for what constitutes a transgression, that's why it's so dangerous. > Also, in what manner is ABC a mob? ABC took no time at all firing Barr. ABC is not the mob here, they wouldn't have done anything if there were no furor surrounding Barr's comment.
        bena 8y ago
        But aren't you as well? You're saying that him being punished now is fair since he said Barr should be fired or expressed joy at Barr getting fired. But if he was already punished, then he's being punished twice. And that wouldn't be fair. Unless you believe people should be punished continuously in perpetuity for their mistakes. Saying ABC would have done nothing is speculative at best. You're just looking for a way to say "Ha ha, tu quoque" by expressing this "concern" over "mob justice". Not to mention, Disney fired Gunn when the overwhelming opinion is that he shouldn't have been fired. So it also isn't even "mob justice".

by bena 8y ago

naasking 8y ago

Of course there are differences, but the question is whether those differences matter. The issue at heart is policing speech according to arbitrary mob rules, and employing that as a weapon against those with whom you disagree. People love inciting the mob when it suits them, but the mob is fickle and cuts both ways. Gunn's poetic punishment for encouraging mob rule was to be cut down by it. And frankly, I don't see how recency is relevant to such matters anyway. Should a murderer who was never caught still face justice 30 years later? Does it matter that "he may have learned better by now"? Either forgiveness and compassion is a virtue and neither Gunn nor Barr should have faced harsh punishment more than a few sharp rebukes to demonstrate what they did wrong, or they both deserved what they got.

bena 8y ago
That's a false dichotomy. You are advocating for either letting people get away with anything or punishing people for life for a mistake. And let's not pretend saying words is the equivalent of murder or that what happened to either Barr or Gunn is the equivalent of the punishment faced by murderers. Murder is a far more serious crime than saying something insensitive. Even in the legal system, there is the concept of the statute of limitations. And it is different for different crimes. Forgiveness and compassion are virtues, but that does not lead to the conclusion that both Barr and Gunn should have been immediately forgiven for what they said. If Gunn had said what he had said the day before, then it would be a fair cop. But he didn't. The recency does matter. Gunn can legitimately say, "Yeah, I'm not proud of that. I know saying that is wrong now" and be convincing. It's been years. He's grown, he's learned. How much growing and learning can you do overnight?
- naasking 8y ago
  > And let's not pretend saying words is the equivalent of murder or that what happened to either Barr or Gunn is the equivalent of the punishment faced by murderers. No, the point of the example was to illustrate that justice is not temporally dependent. While I agree and disagree with some of your points, I'm short on time, so I'll just focus on my main point which you seem to have missed: If you encourage mob justice, you deserve mob justice. A mob is not open to nuanced moral reasoning. Gunn was fully supportive of mob justice for those with whom he disagreed. Gunn therefore deserves the same treatment, and he got it.
  - bena 8y ago
    That presumes he wasn't sufficiently punished earlier. Also, in what manner is ABC a mob? ABC took no time at all firing Barr.
    - naasking 8y ago
      > That presumes he wasn't sufficiently punished earlier. Again, you're stuck in your own mindset of what constitutes justice. Clearly mob justice is not your justice. Gunn's view on Barr's firing is not the only example of his support for mob justice, just the most high profile. The mob makes its own rules for what constitutes a transgression, that's why it's so dangerous. > Also, in what manner is ABC a mob? ABC took no time at all firing Barr. ABC is not the mob here, they wouldn't have done anything if there were no furor surrounding Barr's comment.
      - bena 8y ago
        But aren't you as well? You're saying that him being punished now is fair since he said Barr should be fired or expressed joy at Barr getting fired. But if he was already punished, then he's being punished twice. And that wouldn't be fair. Unless you believe people should be punished continuously in perpetuity for their mistakes. Saying ABC would have done nothing is speculative at best. You're just looking for a way to say "Ha ha, tu quoque" by expressing this "concern" over "mob justice". Not to mention, Disney fired Gunn when the overwhelming opinion is that he shouldn't have been fired. So it also isn't even "mob justice".