4 ms·

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

by 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".
      - naasking 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. Gunn's outcome is justified by simply logical consistency: Gunn endorsed mob justice, therefore Gunn's judgment by mob justice is justified by his own logic. My own views have no bearing on this argument, you're just confusing the fact that I have also expressed personal satisfaction at seeing poetic justice for a loathsome form of judgment. > Saying ABC would have done nothing is speculative at best. Not really. Corporations literally only take action that affect their present or future bottom line in some way. This is simple economic fact. Barr's show was making them money, they fired her because the long-term cost of the PR nightmare outweighed the revenue. If there were no cost, there'd be no reason to fire her and lose out on that revenue. The weight of evidence exceeds mere "speculation". > Not to mention, Disney fired Gunn when the overwhelming opinion is that he shouldn't have been fired. You have some actual data backing up that claim? > So it also isn't even "mob justice". "Mob justice" is not "majority justice". Mobs can reflect minority or majority views, there's no relationship here.
        bena 8y ago
        You're missing the point, you're ignoring on whether or not he's actually been punished prior. If he had already been punished by "mob justice" (which you've ill-defined), then this is double-dipping. It's not logically consistent. You don't like Gunn or his particular brand of activism/politics/discourse and therefore you are enjoying his downfall. If his movies simply failed, you'd likely be just as satisfied. And if the advertisers would have pulled from the show? Then the show doesn't even make them money. Is that mob justice? I mean, what isn't mob justice according to you? And what if they just don't want her there for her views. And there are plenty of times where there's no cost and things get denied or cancelled. These decisions are never purely financial. More data than you do that Barr's firing was "mob justice". All of the actors in Guardians have expressed support for him. Other peers have decried Disney's decision. Articles were written about it. You can do a simple search for "James Gunn firing backlash". I mean, at this point, say what you really want to say.

by bena 8y ago

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".
    - naasking 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. Gunn's outcome is justified by simply logical consistency: Gunn endorsed mob justice, therefore Gunn's judgment by mob justice is justified by his own logic. My own views have no bearing on this argument, you're just confusing the fact that I have also expressed personal satisfaction at seeing poetic justice for a loathsome form of judgment. > Saying ABC would have done nothing is speculative at best. Not really. Corporations literally only take action that affect their present or future bottom line in some way. This is simple economic fact. Barr's show was making them money, they fired her because the long-term cost of the PR nightmare outweighed the revenue. If there were no cost, there'd be no reason to fire her and lose out on that revenue. The weight of evidence exceeds mere "speculation". > Not to mention, Disney fired Gunn when the overwhelming opinion is that he shouldn't have been fired. You have some actual data backing up that claim? > So it also isn't even "mob justice". "Mob justice" is not "majority justice". Mobs can reflect minority or majority views, there's no relationship here.
      - bena 8y ago
        You're missing the point, you're ignoring on whether or not he's actually been punished prior. If he had already been punished by "mob justice" (which you've ill-defined), then this is double-dipping. It's not logically consistent. You don't like Gunn or his particular brand of activism/politics/discourse and therefore you are enjoying his downfall. If his movies simply failed, you'd likely be just as satisfied. And if the advertisers would have pulled from the show? Then the show doesn't even make them money. Is that mob justice? I mean, what isn't mob justice according to you? And what if they just don't want her there for her views. And there are plenty of times where there's no cost and things get denied or cancelled. These decisions are never purely financial. More data than you do that Barr's firing was "mob justice". All of the actors in Guardians have expressed support for him. Other peers have decried Disney's decision. Articles were written about it. You can do a simple search for "James Gunn firing backlash". I mean, at this point, say what you really want to say.