4 ms·

That presumes he wasn't sufficiently punished earlier. Also, in what manner is ABC a mob? ABC took no time at all firing Barr.

by bena 8y ago

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.
      - naasking 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. That's irrelevant. Given Gunn endorses mob justice, then the mob decides what is and isn't right. That's what mob justice means. The number of times you've been punished is immaterial. My personal satisfaction in this outcome is immaterial. How much you've suffered is immaterial. The mob decides what you deserve. Further, people being judged according to how they judge others is the definition of logical consistency. To do otherwise would be special pleading. > Is that mob justice? I mean, what isn't mob justice according to you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy Throngs of people driven by emotional motives rather than rational consideration of the facts and the context of any given scenario. No recognition of people's fallibility. No formal system recognizing the rights of both perpetrators and victims. Dehumanization of perpetrators. These are all characteristic of mob justice. The rise of doxxing, shaming culture, and so on are virtually all forms of mob justice, and it's frankly abhorrent. > And if the advertisers would have pulled from the show? 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. Those are all purely financial motivations. Advertisers pull from the show because the bad PR may affect sales. They don't want her there for the same reasons. It's frankly bizarre that you think there's any other motivation here, particularly for big corporations that are effectively amoral.

That presumes he wasn't sufficiently punished earlier. Also, in what manner is ABC a mob? ABC took no time at all firing Barr.

by 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.
    - naasking 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. That's irrelevant. Given Gunn endorses mob justice, then the mob decides what is and isn't right. That's what mob justice means. The number of times you've been punished is immaterial. My personal satisfaction in this outcome is immaterial. How much you've suffered is immaterial. The mob decides what you deserve. Further, people being judged according to how they judge others is the definition of logical consistency. To do otherwise would be special pleading. > Is that mob justice? I mean, what isn't mob justice according to you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy Throngs of people driven by emotional motives rather than rational consideration of the facts and the context of any given scenario. No recognition of people's fallibility. No formal system recognizing the rights of both perpetrators and victims. Dehumanization of perpetrators. These are all characteristic of mob justice. The rise of doxxing, shaming culture, and so on are virtually all forms of mob justice, and it's frankly abhorrent. > And if the advertisers would have pulled from the show? 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. Those are all purely financial motivations. Advertisers pull from the show because the bad PR may affect sales. They don't want her there for the same reasons. It's frankly bizarre that you think there's any other motivation here, particularly for big corporations that are effectively amoral.