Movies

Hollywood Stars Defend James Gunn From 'Cyber Nazi' Lynch Mob

Guardians of the Galaxy actors say there's more to the man than his old tweets.

|

BT1/Brian To/WENN/Newscom

The stars of Marvel's Guardians of the Galaxy franchise have come to the defense of director James Gunn, whom Disney fired from the films on Friday after right-wing trolls dug up some of his ill-advised Twitter jokes from years ago.

The tweets from Gunn, who directed the first two Guardians of the Galaxy films, involved violence and sexual assault against children. They're disgusting, but they were clearly intended as gags. Making them an issue now is an act of pure retaliation against the left (Gunn is a liberal), perpetrated by far-right hypocrites who are just as committed to weaponizing P.C. culture as anyone on the other side of the spectrum.

Dave Bautista, who plays Drax in the Guardians films, said on Twitter on Friday that Gunn is a "gentle and kind" person. Although he admitted that Gunn has "made mistakes," he said he's "NOT ok with what's happening" to the director. In a pair of follow-up posts, Bautista called out the "cybernazis" responsible for getting Gunn fired:

Chris Pratt, who plays Star-Lord, didn't directly reference Gunn, but the implicit meaning of the Bible verse he tweeted out Sunday was clear: "'Understand this, my dear brothers and sisters. Let every person be quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger.' JAMES 1:19."

And Zoe Saldana, who stars as Gamora, was sure to point out that she loves "ALL" the members of the Guardians of the Galaxy family:

Guardians stars weren't the only ones who expressed their support for Gunn. Rick and Morty creator Justin Roiland and filmmaker Fede Alvarez also wrote that the director deserves better.

Actress Selma Blair even shared a Change.org petition urging Disney to rehire Gunn. As of Monday afternoon, more than 200,000 people had signed it.

Gunn, for his part, has apologized for the old tweets.

NEXT: Republicans Want a Tax Break For Gym Memberships. That's a Terrible Idea.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. There is more to Rosanne Barr than her tweets. That didn’t help her. I don’t see why it should help this guy. If these people want this to stop, they should have stood up for Barr or be willing to stand up for someone on the right who is a victim of it. As it is, they are just pissed that it is happening to someone they like. That is nice and all, but I can’t see why anyone should give a shit.

    1. Stay at home mom Kelly Richards from New York after resigning from her full time job
      managed to average from $6000-$8000 a month from freelancing at home.
      This is how she done it…..>> http://1kdaily.us

      1. See? All hope is not lost; you can always get back on your feet!

    2. Roseanne’s actions were beyond the pale because she’s a right-winger. James Gunn’s actions are fine because he toes the leftist line. It reminds me of the left’s incredible hyprocrisy over one Al Franken.

      1. Really? How so? Franken resigned his senate seat because of senate democrats.

        1. Exactly, I could not stand Franken…but he got railroaded by his own people. Frankly, James Gunn is being railroaded by his own people. So what if a bunch of Alt-Right douches outed these tweets…it wasn’t the Right wanting him fired..

          Bejeezus, everyone both sides, reach down, grab the big boy panties and get over it.

      2. Roseanne is not a right winger, she is a full on fascist (a form of socialist). She also happens to be mentally unstable and prone to going off in public.

        She was “fine” when she was going off as a fascist trashing the right (as she had previously), but is totally unacceptable to the media going off trashing the left.

        That is just how the media rolls!

    3. Yeah, this isn’t “standing up for what is right”. This is “WHOA! These fucking moronic rules got my FRIEND? We need to stop it…but just for my friend”.

      Gunn was OK with Roseanne firing. He was OK with the Ingraham boycott. I should mourn him…why?

      1. Well, you could still stand up for what is right.

        1. Okay. So you stand up for them and they never stand up for you. How does that end up working out Zeb? It ends up with them getting off and you going down. How is that right?

          One of the things about evil is that it creates a moral dilemma. If you refuse to fight evil on its own terms, chances are you are going to lose and evil win. If you choose to fight evil on its own terms, you can win and then hopefully not become totally evil yourself. I am not saying either side is necessarily right. Like most things, the answer is that it depends. But, you shouldn’t kid yourself and think that allowing evil to win and manipulate you into defending it in the name of your principles is automatically the right thing to do.

          1. I’m not standing up for anyone specifically. I know nothing about this Gunn guy. I’m standing up for the culture not being hamstrung and neutered by humorless assholes.

            I want this guy to say “fuck you, I won’t apologize, it was a joke”. Maybe it was a bad joke that failed, or crossed some line of social acceptability. But you can’t find that line without crossing it from time to time.

          2. It works out that you’re not someone who puts principals over principles? It’s not right or fair, but then that’s life sometimes.

            I, for one, am enjoying the mob eating people on the left now, but it’s still a shitty state of affairs that this is happening at all.

            1. It is a shitty state of affairs. But who said life wasn’t shitty?

              1. The problem with shit-hurling contests like this is even if you’re not in the line of fire, the whole thing still stinks to high heaven.

            2. “… it’s still a shitty state of affairs that this is happening at all.”

              No, it is not a shitty stater of affairs when people are held to their own account. Most of the time is is the best you can hope for. This is Earth not Heaven.

        2. One of these days, you’re going to realize that these people hate your guts and want you living in destitution, if not dead, for being a libertarian, and all it takes is one bad day to make it happen.

          I agree that it’s not right that Gunn lost his job for making stupid pedophilia jokes years ago, just as it’s not right that Josh Hader had to become the target of the media’s Two Minutes Hate for provocative crap he wrote as a dumb teenager seven years ago. But Gunn jumped into a fight that didn’t even involve him because he wanted to get backpats on Facebook and Twitter, and it ended up costing him his job when his opponents decided to throw his own degeneracy back in his face.

          If progressives can ruin the lives of no-names like Justine Sacco for making a single stupid tweet, then Gunn losing his job is nothing more than the same principle being applied to their own daily conduct. Unfortunately, these are the rules now. It’s a war, and until the left in particular stops seeking out randos to victimize, there are going to be a lot of casualties. Jacobins never think they’ll be ground under the revolution’s heel until the guillotine comes down on their own head.

          1. I don’t care what they hypothetically think of someone they are never going to meet. I want the stupid bullshit to stop. It probably won’t, but I’ll keep saying it should.

            1. I would like it to stop too. But allowing them to have it go one way isn’t going to stop it Zeb. It will make you feel good about yourself, but it won’t stop it.

            2. I want the stupid bullshit to stop. It probably won’t, but I’ll keep saying it should.

              The problem is that the other side doesn’t want it to stop, they just don’t want it to happen to them. You can’t stop a war when only one side is willing to lay down their arms.

            3. The bullshit will stop when the Left is made to pay enough of a price to be willing to stop doing it to the Right.

              For the most part, the people on the Right are doing it as retaliation in kind, not because they want society to be like this.

              The Right has only *barely* begun to fight back against the Left *in kind*.

              The price of Liberty isn’t eternal vigilance.
              The price of Liberty is fighting back.

              1. War is about killing.
                You try to kill more of their guys than they kill of your guys.
                Then, when you kill enough of their guys they surrender, and the war ends.
                (-Patton?, -MacArthur?)

                In this case, the war will end when The Left gives up on morality (social justice) lynch mobs. When they stop looking for targets upon which to release outrage.
                It’s going to get worse before it gets better.

                1. -LeMay

                  “I’ll tell you what war is about, you’ve got to kill people, and when you’ve killed enough they stop fighting.”

          2. One Set of Rules

        3. Well, you could still stand up for what is right.

          Forcing the left to live by their own rules is how we achieve what is right.

          1. People being accountable to their own rules is the foundation of all legitimate forms of group organization. Absent that principle we couldn’t even have garden clubs, much less states or nations.

            There is no natural right being violated here.

      2. Gunn got fired for pissing off a large demographic of Disney customers. Nothing more, nothing less. He apparently forgot about that clause in his contract that requires he maintain a good public image and represent Disney in a way that supports selling the product.

        Like the rest of us, he is free to speak without fear from the government (1st Amendment) but is not free from marketplace consequences as a result of others speaking. (voice, pen, and cash)

        He apparently believed that because others a Disney agree with him, that meant that Disney would back him. And they would, right up to causing a bunch of folks to stay home instead of seeing the next Guardians of the Galaxy film in the cinema. Gunn just found out the were paying him to make money for them, and as soon as he starts costing them money instead ….bye bye sucka!

    4. People should give a shit if they enjoy humor and comedy.

      1. So the desire for humor and comedy outweighs all other concerns for justice and fair play? It doesn’t in my mind.

        1. People should say that it was terrible for Roseanne to get fired and for this guy to get fired.

          1. Losing your job is a terrible thing.

          2. Gunn was one of the people who supported firing Barr because of her tweets.

      2. They are going after Trevor Noah now…Daily Show host I cannot stand the guy…

        I am honestly tired of this BS of attacking people for anything, let alone things from years ago…

        but my less than Society accepted side has to admit this is glorious.

        1. It is all about business. If he stops bringing in the cash, or brings it in slower than they think someone else can … adios!

    5. There is more to Rosanne Barr than her tweets.

      300 pounds more.

    6. As it is, they are just pissed that it is happening to someone they like.
      ###
      “The crocodile we’ve bred and fed to eat the Right isn’t supposed to turn on us!”

    7. Roseanne was on thin ice already ready and was being given an opportunity to show that she wasn’t a whacko and she blew it. There’s difference between unstable and bad, stupid jokes.

  2. I feel a disturbance in the force, as if millions of souls all groaned at once.

  3. “That’s not real socialism” libertarian edition:

    “Totalitarians professing communism killed millions of people, but this analogy is flawed. Hitler was the leader of Nazism, Stalin the leader of…Stalinism, not communism.”

    http://www.twitter.com/nickgillespie/…..9380920320

    1. Wow. That is just….

      I sense another Peterson hit piece.

    2. WTF? First, that tweet quotes a Jordan Peterson Tweet that says

      The former is the cause of 100 million deaths, at minimum; the latter the reason for living standards that are improving at an unprecedented rate everywhere in the world. And no, we can’t separate it from the horrors of Stalinism, any more than we can separate Nazism from Hitler.

      Is Nick calling Peterson a totalitarian? It appears he is and if so that is absurdly stupid. That tweet is so poorly worded and stupid that I am not even sure what it means. So it is hard to really go after Nick for it.

      1. The goal and ideology of Stalinism (Marxism-Leninism) was Communism. Nick really needs to read the Gulag Archipelago. Jesus Christ that is an obtuse comment.

        1. Nick needs to read a lot of things. Nick really isn’t very well read or that smart beyond pop culture. I think a lot of his obtuseness and pox on both houses cynicism is just his way of covering that fact up.

          1. Is Nick quoting somebody in that tweet?

            Because it is exceptionally fucking stupid.

        2. The goal and ideology of Stalinism (Marxism-Leninism) was Communism.

          Is that supposed to prove you can’t separate communism from Stalinism?

          1. No, it’s not. Communism in theory is stateless. Communism in practice involves a totalitarian state, sometimes called the Vanguard of the Revolution, to use the brute force of the state to mold the people into perfect communists with no sense of self interest, at which point REAL communism can happen. That’s the trajectory of history Karl Marx laid out.

            At least he thought about what it would take more than the garden variety antifa type who call themselves anarchists. If you think this step can be skipped can you explain your preferred method?

            1. Yeah, that’s the basic idea. Stalinism wasn’t communism, because there was no stateless society. And I think it’s fair to say that Stalin really had no interest in getting to communism, because that would mean giving up all his power and he wasn’t going to do that. But he called himself a ‘communist’ and told people that they were going to the worker’s paradise ‘any day now’ or some such.

              1. “Hitlerism wasn’t real fascism, because it did not achieve the corporatist model that Giovanni Gentile wrote about in his Philosophy of Fascism.”

                This is what you sound like

                1. You do realize Jeff’s a communist, right?

              2. Yeah, that’s the basic idea. Stalinism wasn’t communism

                Yet Communists kill scores of people wherever they have power. It’s not like Stalin is an outlier.

                Pol Pot killed 1/4 of his country’s population. Mao killed three times as many people in China. This is what Communists DO.

              3. Mr. “Muh Anarchy” and “Borders Be Evil” also plays the “No True Communism” game

                Why am I not surprised?

              4. Aaand, this is why there is no difference between Democratic Socialists and Communists in practice. The Socialists plan to remain in the socialist/fascist mode, and the Communists end up remaining in the socialist/fascist mode.

                The only difference is that the Socialists don’t believe in utopia on earth and the Communists say they do.

              5. Stalin had no interest in anything or anyone other than Stalin and his survival. He knew the second he let go of his iron fist around the throats of Soviet citizens he was a dead man, so he never let up and anyone who challenged him dies swiftly and painfully. He starved entire cities just for his own amusement. Hitler didn’t have anything on Stalin, they were just slightly different types of mass murdering dictators.

            2. Communism is theory is stateless. Of course it is a theory thought up by an angry hack based on junk history and an adolescent understanding of economics.

              1. In theory, people would remember the fable of the grasshopper and the ant…but we don’t.

        3. ‘If only Nick new!’

          Yeah, horseshit. Nick knows what he is doing, and it is evil.

      2. Is Nick calling Peterson a totalitarian? It appears he is and if so that is absurdly stupid.

        Are you an idiot? Do you also think Nick is accusing Peterson of killing millions of people?

        1. No. I never said that. An actually now that I read it again, I understand what Nick is saying and he is completely wrong. Stalinism was communism. It wasn’t just professing to be, it was. And to the extent, it moved away from pure communism, that didn’t happen until well after the great terror and the Ukrainian famine and about a million other atrocities.

          1. Nick is playing a deeply dishonest word game. His comparisons are not apples to apples, making his own analogy deeply flawed.

            He equates Hitler to Nazism, but not to Fascism. Because, if it can be argued that ‘Stalinism’ was not ‘true communism,’ then it can likewise be argued that Hitler’s design was not ‘true fascism.’

            But while arguing that “Nazism was not true Fascism” is rightly seen as both evil and nuts, the same cannot be said for the arguments over all the various flavors of communism.

            Maybe Nick was brainwashed into this pretzel logic in college, but at this stage of his life he really should know better.

          2. No one has ever actually tried communism on a large scale because they know it will fail, it’s just a word to get people fired up against the 1% and dictators sling it around as if there is something better coming for the stupid 99% as long as they cooperate with them and give them power.

        2. “Totalitarians professing communism killed millions of people, but this analogy is flawed”

          I don’t think you can draw that conclusion. It does seem like he’s calling Jordan a totalitarian.

          Nonetheless, I only posted this because I thought it would be ironic under this article. But, alas, irony is dead

          1. What exactly is your interpretation of the first clause of the sentence?

            Peterson is the totalitarian — is he professing communism???

            Did he kill millions of people?

            Seriously, what on earth do you think that sentence says?

            1. I think he is referring to Jordan as a totalitarian. That’s how it reads. The next sentence seems to be a very very bad attempt to show how wrong the “totalitarian” Jordan is.

              Either way, I mainly posted this to see the rage fest erupt, which is what this article is about (social media rage fests). But, I am dismayed to see people recite the socialist mantra “that’s not real communism”.

              The Tweet is dumb. But, then again, Nick Gillespie is the Nick Gillespie of libertarianism, so this is to be expected

              1. I think he is referring to Jordan as a totalitarian. That’s how it reads.

                And what do you think the rest of the sentence says if you think that? That Peterson killed millions?

                The clause says “totalitarians professing communism”, subject, “killed”, verb, “millions of people.”

          2. “Totalitarians professing communism killed millions of people, but this analogy is flawed”

            I don’t think you can draw that conclusion. It does seem like he’s calling Jordan a totalitarian

            Wow, what a piece of nonsense!

            Communism specifically REQUIRES socialist totalitarianism to “mold the communist man”. The totalitarianism is casual also ran with communism, it is a required feature!

      3. Peterson is defending free market economics as something with a proven record of improving living conditions right now while criticizing international socialism’s track record of murder and misery. Gillespie interjects defending socialism by putting a hard line between Stalin’s take on communism from international socialism for no reason I can justify.

        1. For some reason the tweet made no sense when I first read it. But now I get it. And that is exactly what he is doing. And it is not only wrong, it is frankly a bizarre point for a Libertarian to even make.

          1. I have noticed that Peterson has inspired a great distastefor him in a number of ostensibly classical liberal pundits, for reasons I have not heard a good explanation for.

            1. It all boils down to that icky God stuff he talks about. Peterson doesn’t call himself a preacher, but he understands and defends the religious underpinnings of Western Culture better than almost anyone else.

              If you have read Reason for any length of time you’ll see that libertarians love religion in the abstract, but hate it in practice.

              1. Except I have seen it in pundits outside of Reason writers. It almost seems a certain amount of envy based on Peterson’s rapid fame.

            2. You knew the reason
              “ostensibly classical liberal pundits”

        2. Can Nick cite the Communust states that didnt involve murdering scores of people?

          Or how communism can work without mass murder?

          1. Or how communism can work without mass murder?

            Well, I suspect if you had a large enough technological base, you could get away with “merely” mass incarceration.

          2. But no, based on historical precedent, it’s not the way I would bet, either.

          3. No, but that’s only because True Communism has never been tried. Duh!

          4. I’m working on the idea of a sock puppet for this board, something like ‘NoTrueCommunistsLibertarian’ or ‘Beware theIntellectualDarkRadicalRightWing’ and then just paraphrase Nick Gillespie

        3. COMMUNISM HAS NEVER BEEN TRIED!

          HOW LONG WILL WE LIVE IN THE FAILURE OF PURE FREE MARKETS BEFORE WE GIVE COMMUNISM A CHANCE?

          1. Okay I giggled at the sarc 😉

    3. Stalinism wasn’t socialism and it wasn’t communism either.

      Communism is a stateless society in which everything is collectively owned. That wasn’t Stalinism.

      Lots of people use the terms loosely. And that’s fine. But one would expect a scholar to use more precision in his terms.

      1. I feel like I’ve heard socialists make this same argument before. It was rather dumb before. Now it’s just farcical.

        1. “That wasn’t real fascism- it was Hitlerism”

          Is about as smart of an argument as suggesting that Stalin was practicing Stalinism

          1. Would you support the statement, “You can’t separate fascism from Hitlerism”?

            1. You cannot separate fascism from Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, and Salazar, to name a few. Just like communist leaders, all of these fascists practiced very different policies, especially with regards to economics, but they all generally coalesced around the same ideologies.

              I would hold the same conclusion for all self-avowed communist dictatorships. Either way, it’s a rather dumb contention, because all of those tyrants were horrible people inspired by incredibly flawed ideologies

              1. You cannot separate fascism from Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, and Salazar, to name a few. Just like communist leaders, all of these fascists practiced very different policies, especially with regards to economics, but they all generally coalesced around the same ideologies.

                That’s kind of a dodge, isn’t it? If fascism couldn’t be separated from Hitlerism (note, I am not saying “Hitler,” because I’m giving an exact parallel to Peterson’s remark), why would you need to bring Mussolini, Franco, or Salazar into it? You could simply explain Hitlerism and that fascism was inseparable from the need for Jewish genocide. But that wouldn’t really be true.

                1. I thought I agreed with your point that Hitler couldn’t be separated from fascism. Much like Stalin can’t be separated from communism

                  1. Maybe, I’m confused.

                  2. Oh, I see what you’re saying now.

                    I think that the genocide of Hitler is an inherent result of fascism’s worship of the state. Much like the murder that has occurred in every self-avowed communist regime is an inherent result of communism’s emphasis on failed economics which don’t work without coercion.

                    Does that address your point?

                    1. I think that the genocide of Hitler is an inherent result of fascism’s worship of the state. Much like the murder that has occurred in every self-avowed communist regime is an inherent result of communism’s emphasis on failed economics which don’t work without coercion.

                      Does that address your point?

                      I mean, it does, but there hasn’t been a Jewish genocide in every fascist state, so it just seems wrong.

                    2. but there has been a genocide of some people in every fascists state…Armenians to name one.

                2. What has truth go to do with this?

                3. Franco and Salazar were not fascists by any definition.

                4. Hitler was a fascist. Being a fascist, he was also a socialist. Hitler was also a racist. It is possible to be both a fascist AND a racist, but it is not required.

              2. Both self-avowed fascist and communist dictatorships that is

          2. It might not be doctrinaire “real communism” but it is “real world communism” no doubt.

            1. Logan’s Run was close…till you turned 35 and the kids wanted to move out of the basement.

        2. Remember, technically correct is the best kind of correct.

          So, yeah, technically, Stalinism wasn’t true communism. The Soviet Union never actually achieved true communism. True communism requires unicorns as a requisite ingredient, and they don’t exist, so what the Soviet Union had wasn’t actually communism.

          It was absolutely the predecessor state that all societies who are on the claimed arc to communism end up in. But it wasn’t actually communism.

          Since all the places that try to implement communism actually end up in this sort of massive state abbatoir, that’s plenty of reason to oppose people who say they support communism.

          So the statement “Stalinism wasn’t communism” is true, but basically irrelevant.

          1. Communism requires people to act on a whole in the interest of the “collective community” rather than for their own personal individuality. That has never happened EVER on a large scale and is genetically programmed into us as natural selection. This is why capitalism and governments that promote the individual work over the long term and why Communism becomes Venezuela.

        3. It’s Faith.

      2. That is just nonsense. Stalin sure as hell considered himself a communist and the entire international communist party, sans the small Trotsky wing, agreed with him. It was only later, after the full horrors of Stalin were finally admitted to by the Soviet Union, did the idea communists start declaring Stalin wasn’t a communist

        And no, statelessness is the Utopian end state of communism. The total state necessary in communists views to get to that Utopia is absolutely communism.

        1. I’m aware of what Stalin called himself. But look at what Stalin created. Was it a stateless society in which all property was collectively owned? No.

          The total state necessary in communists views to get to that Utopia is absolutely communism.

          That is not how Marx viewed it. He viewed state socialism as a transitory phase on the road to communism.

          IMO, the main argument against socialism & communism, when invoking the Soviet Union, isn’t that the Soviet Union was a disastrously communist state. It was a disaster, of course, but not a communist state. The argument is that they TRIED to get to communism, and in so doing, had to empower the state with so much power that the leaders of the state never saw fit to divest themselves of the power, dissolve itself, and create the promised worker’s paradise that they claimed to want.

          1. “I’m aware of what Hitler called himself. But look at what Hitler created. Was it a corporatist society in which all business was directed by the collective? No”

            Same lack of logic

            1. So perhaps fascism and Nazism really are distinct from each other, just like communism and Stalinism are distinct from each other as well.

              1. They are not distinct from one another. Hitler was a fascist.

                I think that the genocide of Hitler is an inherent result of fascism’s worship of the state. Much like the murder that has occurred in every self-avowed communist regime is an inherent result of communism’s emphasis on failed economics which don’t work without coercion.

                1. Hitler was a fascist, yes. However fascism exists as a concept independent of Hitler.

                  I think that the genocide of Hitler is an inherent result of fascism’s worship of the state.

                  Then why wasn’t Mussolini a genocidal maniac?

                  1. Mussolini committed genocide. Just not against a specific ethnic group. But, his enemies disappeared.

                    1. Mussolini committed genocide. Just not against a specific ethnic group. But, his enemies disappeared.

                      That’s not what genocide is, dude.

                  2. Because he couldn’t convince and organize Italians into enough of a fervour to take it to that level. How can you trust such a big face? Plus, he was a thug and a murderer.

                    Other than that, he got the train to run on time and was a really cool dude.

                  3. Fascism, is not not necessarily racist, but they are not mutually exclusive. Hitler WAS a fascist and Hitler WAS a racist.

                    This continuous attempt to claim that because Hitler was a racist, he was not a “real” fascist is just an attempt to isolate the nastiness of Hitler from fascism.

                    It is worth remembering that Hitler did not just hate on the Jews either. He hated on pretty much everyone who was not German …. and his definition of German at that.

                2. Much like the murder that has occurred in every self-avowed communist regime is an inherent result of communism’s emphasis on failed economics which don’t work without coercion.

                  Read up on the Paris Commune sometime. Heck, read up on Israeli kibbutzes.

                  1. The Paris commune was not a good thing at all. They killed “class traitors”

                  2. Collective ideologies wont work without very very advanced technologies.
                    Who toils in the fields? Who mines the coal? Who shovels the shit?

                    The horse always dies, the pigs always eat.
                    What happens when everyone wants to be a pig?

                    Someone is forced to be a horse…….

          2. I’m aware of what Stalin called himself. But look at what Stalin created. Was it a stateless society in which all property was collectively owned? No.

            That is because he failed just like every other Marxist has failed. The state he inherited from Lenin and that he continued down the same path was a communist state that was supposed to end in that. The fact that it failed doesn’t make it any less communist.

            That is not how Marx viewed it. He viewed state socialism as a transitory phase on the road to communism.

            Yes it was a transitory phase. Do you know what that means? It was the phase necessary to go from capitalism to Utopia. So, yes he did view it as necessary. You just admitted that but are too dim to understand that you did.

            And your last paragraph is just a distinction without a difference. They did what communists prescribe and instead of paradise, they got hell. It is really that simple.

            1. That is because he failed just like every other Marxist has failed.

              That’s right. Stalin failed to create a communist state. So how can you now call Stalin’s product “communism”? Did he fail at creating a communist state, or did he not fail?

              Yes it was a transitory phase. Do you know what that means? It was the phase necessary to go from capitalism to Utopia. So, yes he did view it as necessary.

              Let me put this in words that perhaps you can understand.

              Suppose you are taking a road trip from California to New York. You make a pit stop in Missouri, get out of the car, and say “well, I’m on the road to New York, that means I must now be in New York!” So, are you in New York, or are you in Missouri?

              1. NO Stalin failed to create a communist utopia, as in the stateless society that follows the communist state. He sure as hell created a communist state.

                Marx didn’t advocate the immediate transition to the stateless Utopia. He advocated creating a total state that would transform man into the new Soviet man who would then usher in Utopia. Stalin and Lenin tried to create that total state. It was a communist state. I don’t know how many more ways you can lose this argument.

              2. If i attempt to build a house and it falls over in an earthquake, am I still a builder?

                Show me how you get to “communism” in any other way than Stalinism/maoism/mass-murderism and ill show you the road to New York via the moon.

                To say that Stalins product isn’t a necessary stepping stone of communism is moronic.

                1. There is no stepping stone into true communism because it can’t exist on a large scale; it goes against human nature. Stalin just wanted to keep Stalin in power, it’s as simple as that.

          3. So your argument is that those who espoused Communist views attempted to institute Communism, failed to do so (basically out of logical necessity given your take that they had to take the actions they did in order to institute Communism), and that that somehow absolves Communism from the hundreds of millions dead? That’s an interesting take.

            1. and that that somehow absolves Communism from the hundreds of millions dead? That’s an interesting take.

              Where did I say anyone was absolved of anything?

              By the way, “communism” didn’t kill anyone. Nor did “capitalism” or “socialism” or “libertarianism” or any other ideology. People were the ones doing the killing.

              1. Uh huh. If those who subscribe to an ideology just can’t stop themselves from murdering people by the millions or tens of millions, there might just be a problem with the ideology itself.

              2. People motivated by a particular ideology were the ones doing the killing of people who the particular ideology tells them to kill.

                Does that make more sense now?

              3. And ideas don’t matter Jeff?

          4. IMO, the main argument against socialism & communism, when invoking the Soviet Union, isn’t that the Soviet Union was a disastrously communist state. It was a disaster, of course, but not a communist state. The argument is that they TRIED to get to communism, and in so doing, had to empower the state with so much power that the leaders of the state never saw fit to divest themselves of the power, dissolve itself, and create the promised worker’s paradise that they claimed to want.

            Is this the mythical Peak Libertarian Autism?

          5. The argument is that they TRIED to get to communism

            That’s exactly the point. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, et al were True Believers in the stateless utopia. All their actions, behaviors, and moral justifications sprung from the assumption that they were creating a utopia. They knew that times would be hard until then, but it was justified in the belief that it would all pay off in the end.

            The purpose of Marxism-Leninism was Communism.

          6. That is not how Marx viewed it.

            Marx was an impressively unemployable imbecile with no concept of human nature OR economics. He never explains WHY people will go for a classless society, because human nature shows that such things simply do not happen without, well, lots of force.

          7. He viewed state socialism as a transitory phase on the road to communism.

            Because it is.

            The road from free, individualistic society to communist society goes through an ever increasing totalitarian state that gets lumped under the name ‘state socialism’.

            But that name includes ‘Stalinism’–and Nazism, and fascism, and Maoism, Castroism, Pol Pot-ism, Ho Chi Minhism. It includes the lie of ‘democratic socialism’–and ‘social democratism’.

            It is a horror that becomes more and more violently totalitarian and authoritarian as it tries to walk the path Marx set out because that path is utterly at odds with anything humans want or need and becomes more so the longer it lasts.

            There is no way to get to ‘communism’ because humans fundamentally despise it. They will cease being human before they accept it.

            And THAT is what communists want.

        2. That is just nonsense. Stalin sure as hell considered himself a communist and the entire international communist party, sans the small Trotsky wing, agreed with him.

          1. Fuck, is this site coded by Communists?

            Trotsky was arguably more violent than Stalin. He would have killed MORE than Stalin did. Ditto Che in Cuba.

            1. Mao did kill more than Stalin and Pot killed a much higher percentage of his own population. Like I say below, Stalinism is actually one of the less murderous forms of communism.

              1. *shudder*

                Imagine if Pol Pot had been in charge of a large country.

              2. Stalin: Not paranoid enough?

      3. I swear to God that’s some kind of fallacy…

      4. Stalinism is not an ideology anymore Leninism was. They interpreted Marxism, socialism and arrived at their vision of communism. It’s all from the same shitty, communist shithole. The Soviet Union was communist; heck even socialist. But it wasn’t Stalinism. Get my point? Look at it this way. Remember when Homer went to the Duff beer factory and all the types of Duff came from the same funnel? That’s how I view those idiotic ideologies – sure throw Stalinism in there too I don’t give a shit.

        Other examples: Cuba was Castroism; a dictator but not communism.

        It’s like saying, kinda, Trumpism is not capitalism.

        1. Trumpism is actually not capitalism, it’s kind of fascism-lite. Create xenophobia to enhance your power, isolation/nationalism to fire up your base, ignore any fiscal conservatism and spend like a drunk man on the military.

      5. And the idea that you “can’t separate” communism from Stalinism when communism existed for decades before Stalinism is obviously false.

        1. Only if you are a moron. Just because someone develops a new strain of an existing ideology doesn’t mean that it isn’t the same ideology. Libertarianism was not developed until the 20th Century. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t a form of Classical liberalism, which existed for over 200 years before Libertarianism.

          1. Does that mean you can’t separate classical liberalism from libertarianism?

            1. Libertarianism is a form of classical liberalism. If a self-professed Libertarian government ever murders a few million people, classical liberalism will have to answer for why its other strains are somehow different. Unless you can show me that there was something different about Stalinism than other forms of communism that made it more murderous, the fact that Stalin’s strain was slightly different than Mao’s or Castro’s is a meaningless point. And there is no way you can show that. In fact, Stalin’s version of communism was actually less murderous than Mao’s or Pol Pot’s version. It was actually less vicious than Lenin’s. Lenin just died before he could kill as many people as Stalin did. If anything Stalinism is one of the less murderous strains of communism. That is not because Stalin wasn’t horrible. It is only because Marxism is really that evil.

              1. If a self-professed Libertarian government ever murders a few million people, classical liberalism will have to answer for why its other strains are somehow different.

                So many twisty ways to avoid saying “no, classical liberalism can’t be separated from libertarianism.”

                I wonder why that would be.

                1. So many twisty ways to avoid saying “no, classical liberalism can’t be separated from libertarianism.”

                  Unless it can explain why Libertarianism is different such that the other strains of classical liberalism would not do whatever crimes my hypothetical Libertarian stat is guilty of, then it can’t be untwinned from it in a meaningful way.

                  Jesus Christ you are fucking stupid.

            2. Can Stalinism exist without communism? Hmm…

              1. Can Stalinism exist without communism?

                The answer to that may be no, but it doesn’t mean communism can’t exist without Stalinism. I mean, it did so for decades.

                1. Sure it can exist without Stalinism. Now Cathy explain how the other forms of communism are any less murderous than Stalinism and how there is something about Stalinism that is different from the other strains such that the murders and crimes of Stalin cannot be fairly said to represent Communism. Saying but it is different isn’t a good enough answer.


                2. The answer to that may be no, but it doesn’t mean communism can’t exist without Stalinism. I mean, it did so for decades.

                  And there’s the rub. The thing is that communism is directly opposed to human nature, and only works among groups of like minded altruists that can simply kick out anyone that doesn’t fit their mold.

                  You know, like any cult.

                  You’re trying to pretend that all the various -ism’s surrounding communism aren’t stepping stones on the path to communism, but that’s exactly what they are. Misguided, perhaps, but ultimately necessary when you move past small ‘tribes’.

                  Reality is a cruel mistress to communists and libertarians alike.

        2. And the idea that you “can’t separate” communism from Stalinism when communism existed for decades before Stalinism is obviously false.

          It only existed in any large scale in the USSR. And much of Lenin’s state was created and managed…by Stalin. Stalin did the drudge work to make the state work as, well, a Communist state works.

        3. “Stalinism’ only became a topic after history defined it, while in practice it was Communism.

          Sort of like how something that used to be a prank , has now been regulated to ‘catfishing’…

          Good Lord.

        4. And the idea that you “can’t separate” communism from Stalinism when communism existed for decades before Stalinism is obviously false.

          WTF? You do know that Stalin took over less than a decade after the Russian Revolution, right?

        5. Cathy, Stalinism is what you get when you try to implement communism. That’s why the idea of communism preceded Stalinism, and that’s the sense in which Stalinism and communism are “inseperable” even though they are not identical.

      6. The Soviet state supposed goal was to shape the new kind of Man who could implement a communist society. They basic flaw in communism is that it does not scale up beyond a small village or tribe and never figured out how you could get there from here. The kind of repression of human nature necessary to make the New Soviet Man leads to Stalinism, or Maoism, or Castroism or any of the other horror shows of the past century.

      7. Communism is a stateless society in which everything is collectively owned. That wasn’t Stalinism.

        So there has never actually been any communist state, ever? Even the USSR immediately after the revolution doesn’t count? It’s like No True Scotsman on steroids with you.

      8. “No True Communism” is the mark of vermin for whom the mountain of 100 million corpses of communism just wasn’t high enough.

      9. Communism removes the need for the state by eliminating everybody who disagrees with communist principles. Stalin very much tried that, he simply stopped after killing the first hundred million people. Stalin also tried to make everything collectively owned, he simply stopped when it looked like that was going to destroy the country.

        It is entirely accurate to describe Stalin as a socialist and as a commiunist: it is how he described himself, how others described him, and how he acted.

        You simply can’t accept the fact that communism and socialism are ideologies for which mass murder and totalitarianism is an intrinsic component.

    4. No one gets the irony of posting this under this article, cyberNazis?

      1. Naw the Cybernazi’s is a nod to the alt-right idiots who did this. But, when a left-winger does it it is #Resistance.

    5. What a stupid discussion. Let’s not agree on our definitions of terms and then argue about how the other side is wrong, because they have a different definition.

      Look, people are conditioned to respond certain ways to certain words, like Pavlov’s dogs. In this case, if you are a conservative, “communism” is a huuuge trigger word. No one shall ever say anything positive about communism! The Jacket is just trolling. It must be hungry.

      This is not a discussion to build rapport or exchange information. This is a discussion to fight for fighting’s sake, where the goal is to get a strong emotional reaction from your opponent or to catch them in a contradiction, which causes a dopamine spike. Just go have some chocolate instead, for fuck’s sake.

      1. Not even you get the irony.

        1. Oh, I do, but why don’t you explain it to me anyway.

          1. The article is about the stupidity of social mobs regarding Tweets. I knew this Tweet would arouse a mob reaction. And lo and behold it did

            1. I think you are stretching the meaning of “mob reaction.” A couple of comments hardly qualifies as that.

        2. “Look, people are conditioned to respond certain ways to certain words, like Pavlov’s dogs. In this case, if you are a conservative, “communism” is a huuuge trigger word.”

          That also use to be a trigger word for libertarians

          1. I would hope it’s a trigger word for any self-avowed humanist. Something about 100 million+ dead.

          2. You make it sound like libertarians are all of a sudden defending communism. Which is not true.

            1. That’s not what I mean. But, this is the first time that I’ve ever seen a self-avowed libertarian go the tract of “actually, that wasn’t real communism”. And he seems to also do the “actually Hitler was a Nazi, not a fascist”.

              I just think both statements are false and needlessly attempt to split hairs.

              1. I don’t really care. Twitter is cancer. And the responses to this Tweet and what happened to Gunn and Roseanne show that to be true

              2. I just think both statements are false and needlessly attempt to split hairs.

                I look at it more as an attempt to deflate the arguments of people who use the claim as an actual defence of communism.

                “Yes, you’re right. The Soviets never achieved actual communism. And that doesn’t matter at all.”

            2. To be fair, I don’t think anyone accused Nick Gillespie of being a libertarian.

          3. As long as it’s voluntary communism, why not?

            We actually have a form of voluntary communism right now. It’s called “the traditional family”

            1. So, communism works when there is extremely tight genetic bonds with extremely low diversity?

              Sure. Makrs sense.

            2. Being someone’s child isn’t voluntary.

            3. A traditional family tends to share private property, but doesn’t prohibit private property outright.

            4. I actually agree with you here ChemJeff (well, minus the ‘traditional family’ bit anyway), but then again I’ve been making the case for maybe a few years now that libertarianism is about as rooted in reality as communism. They’re both idealistic ethos that probably can’t survive in the ‘real world’ without, say, armageddon happening first.

              Or, more accurately, they both work on a very small scale. Too bad the world is moving towards a global government which will be neither communist nor libertarian.

            5. How can the complete prohibition of private property ever be voluntary?

            6. If Nationalists were voluntarily Socialist, would that also be OK?

          4. communism” is a huuuge trigger word.”

            It’s also a “huge trigger word” for people who have lived through communism and whose families were destroyed by communism, because communism is irredeemably evil and destructive.

      2. COMMIE!

      3. if you are a conservative, “communism” is a huuuge trigger word. No one shall ever say anything positive about communism!

        It sounds like you’ve never met a Cambodian person.

        1. Are any left alive after communism?

          1. A good number of refugees made it to America, and probably other places. It took out about a quarter of their population in just a couple years.

            If you have Netflix you need to watch First They Killed My Father.

          2. Or after cannibalism?

      4. The reason why there is nothing positive to say about communism is because it’s antithetical to private property, which is a a fundamental component of individual liberty. You speak as if it’s all just semantics.

      5. Communism is just a trigger buzzword for dumb hick snowflakes. But Nazi is the worst thing you can call someone, because it is the worst thing anyone can be.

        That sums up the Left’s thinking and impact on our culture for the last 60 years

    6. Nick, this might be the stupidest thing you’ve ever published.

      1. You’ve obviously never read his articles on immigration….

    7. Judging from the responses here to Gillespie’s Tweet it’s fair to say that (a) different people can reach different conclusions from Tweets, hence why social media mobs are so idiotic (b) Twitter sucks donkey balls and (c) all totalitarian states are murderous bastards, no matter what you call them (except the Hapsburgs- they were good people)

    8. Maybe this is a case of “Jordan Peterson said something, so it must be wrong, even though if someone else said it I’d probably sympathize.”

      1. I just don’t get why people want him to be wrong. Especially anyone with individualist tendencies. I mean, I’m hardly a strict traditionalist, but I can’t find much to disagree with in what I’ve heard of him.

        1. Maybe because he’s extremely anti-individualist? I mean, I realize he’s not billed as such, but he’s obsessed with the traditional family which is an institution pretty hostile to individualism.

          1. As opposed to what?!

            He is more obsessed with the relationship between liberty and responsibility and the correlation between those and a life well lived, which often leads to family.

          2. There’s another bizarre libertarian obsession: Bashing the nuclear family.

            Statistically speaking, there is no better model for raising children without the intervention of the state. Areas with high marriage rates and large numbers of intact families in general have lower levels of poverty and welfare use, along with crime and other social pathologies.

            Yet libertarians in general are strangely hostile towards the family as an institution.

            Who do libertarians think would be better qualified to raise and support children than their biological father and mother? The staff of the local Head Start?

            1. Libertarianism is not that different than Communism. It is a purely theoretical idea that will never work on a mass scale and, if tried, would cause mass misery and death.

              They are opposite faces of the same coin.

            2. > libertarians in general are strangely hostile towards the family as an institution.

              Only the cultural Marxists at C4SS. Unfortunately, the Frankfort School has infiltrated much of the libertarian movement.

          3. Your conception of libertarianism and its consequences is utterly wrong, Cathy. Libertarianism doesn’t bring about more individualism, overall it likely brings about less individualism, as in the absence of state action, you are forced to rely more on social networks and family. And while the obligations towards family and friends are certainly anti-individualist, they are not anti-liberty. Individualism and liberty are two very different concepts.

            So, if it’s individualism you seek, go with the progressives. Progressives are trying hard to “liberate” you from social pressures, family, and other obligations. Libertarianism is doing the opposite.

          4. Yeah, No True Individualist ever had a family. They were all feral orphans

          5. > the traditional family which is an institution pretty hostile to individualism

            How in the hell do explain that (absolutely nonsensical) conclusion?!?!? The traditional family is the greatest bulwark against statism – witness the herculean efforts by the cultural Marxists to destroy it.

    9. Jesus Christ. Do people just not bother finding out what Peterson has to say about anything?

      1. He said “communism can’t be separated from Stalinism,” and despite their desire to attack Nick, few people here are actually willing to defend that statement.

        1. Given how many communist countries ended up being led by a Stalinesque figure, I am not sure what the argument for separation would be.

          1. Stalinism is the natural end result of communism. North Korea is the latest but certainly not the last example of it.

        2. Communism and Stalinism are the same fucking thing.

          Stalinism was the means to install Communism.

          Communism isn’t possible without the “excesses” of Stalin. We’ve seen that in, literally, every place it has been tried.

    10. I’ve noticed Reason staff really don’t like Peterson. I can’t think of any reason why, other than his unabashed pro-Western culture views which give libertarians in general the willies.

      1. He’s one of the most odd victims of their Two Minutes of Hate.

        They cannot fellate Jeff Flake enough. But Jordan? Nope.

        Maybe if he called Trump a poopy head, they’d be on board.

        You’d think a man who became famous for opposing speech laws would be a hero to Libertarians…but then you’d have to assume what this site espouses has any actual relation to Libertarianism. Which is a stupid idea in and of itself.

    11. Thank you Thank you Thank you

      Reason goes “No True Communism”

      As pathetic as Reason has become, I still find this a shock.

    12. Fuck Nick Gillespie. I am forever over him

      Seriously, fuck him. What a disgrace

    13. Contrary to denialist fantasies Lenin killed millions as did Trotsky – specifically through his liquidation of returning WWII POWs. People who think Stalin was unique are driven by ideological blinders.

      That’s before we even get to non-Soviet communist mass murderers.

      1. Well, Lenin was dead before WW II started…but, yes, he liquidated his rivals quite effectively.

        The relatively small Leninist faction at the time gained total power by extremely violent means.


  4. Making them an issue now is an act of pure retaliation against the left (Gunn is a liberal), perpetrated by far-right hypocrites who are just as committed to weaponizing PC culture as anyone on the other side of the spectrum.

    You see, only liberals are allowed to read Rules for Radicals. Anyone else has a moral responsibility not to read it.

    Meanwhile, if you’re a liberal you are expected to read it and, furthermore, practice it.

    Does that about sum up ol’ Joe’s opinion here?

    Don’t get me wrong, I think Gunn shouldn’t have been fired over this but he is being held to the same standard as the right so it seems absolutely fair to me even while it’s distasteful. What’s more infuriating is that people still don’t see the double standard until they’re on the wrong side of it.

    1. More importantly, he is being held to the same standards he demanded of other people. This guy was all for ABC firing Barr. If he doesn’t like being fired for the stupid shit he said on Twitter, maybe he should have defended Barr.

      1. Or at least kept silent instead of passing out torches and pitchforks to the rest of the mob.

        Most of the entertainment industry is made up people who on the left politically. A few of them have spoken up against this ugliness and a greater number have been silent. But there’s a vocal contingent who were willingly a part of trying to get people fired. Gunn was in the last group which makes it entirely fair that he should have to pay the price just like Barr did.

    2. What’s most infuriating is that they don’t want to remove the double standard. The thoughts of “crucify the republican for his old tweet” and “Gunn is a good guy who didn’t deserve this” exist in their head without causing any conflict. There’s simply no cognitive dissonance for them to struggle with.

      1. They have to think that way because if they would acknowledge their hypocrisy that would be admitting they are wrong. And that way lies madness. “Me, wrong? That’s unpossible”

      2. Of course, it’s just the same shit they did with Al Franken. Every time it’s the same story, but at least I guess it’s some small comfort that the list of examples I can use to draw the analogy is growing at a steady pace. The sad part is that the list of examples is growing at a steady pace.

        God damn it.

      3. It is called doublethink

      4. Have you forgotten doublethink, Winston?

      5. LITERALLY the same people attacking Duplass for humanizing Ben Shapiro want to forgive Gunn.

        Fuck Seyton, Fuck Gillespie, Fuck Reason. This whole place needs to be burned down and someone should start a magazine/website for libertarians. Maybe he LVM folks

    3. Don’t get me wrong, I think Gunn shouldn’t have been fired over this but he is being held to the same standard as the right so it seems absolutely fair to me even while it’s distasteful. What’s more infuriating is that people still don’t see the double standard until they’re on the wrong side of it.

      So you’re saying you agree that those on the far right who got Gunn fired are hypocrites committed to weaponizing PC culture.

      1. I’m saying that if it stops being a double standard, and is applied evenly, than it will be more fair even while it will be more shitty.

        Personally, I’m not even sure how this would be hypocrisy for the ‘far right’, whoever they may be. I’d be more interested to hear about who specifically released this, since for all you know it’s perfectly in line with their stated values.

        1. It looks like it was originally posted by some family values type.

          1. If true, right in line with bi-partisan family values censorship types.

      2. Sure. Those on the right are hypocrites. Can you admit that those on the left defending Gunn are also hypocrites?

        1. They obviously are.

      3. So you’re saying you agree that those on the far right who got Gunn fired are hypocrites committed to weaponizing PC culture.

        Hypocrites? You can absolutely make that argument.

        Are Gunn’s defenders not the same?

        1. Most of them are, yes.

          1. As is Gunn himself. He enjoyed the mob when it went after his enemies. Not so much when it went after himself. Live by the sword…

            1. Indeed.

              I’ve said repeatedly….eventually, the mob got Robespierre too.

      4. This is the logic that says self-defense is murder.

        1. Not exactly self-defense, except in a broader communal sense.
          .
          .
          .
          You know what this is?

          Social (Media) Justice

      5. No, because if you don’t know who did this, or what their feelings were, so you can’t call them hypocrites.

        Every Conservative/Libertarian/Conservatarian in the country didn’t do this. Mike Cernovich did.

      6. I think someone who makes jokes about pedophilia on Twitter shouldn’t be making movies for children for Disney. Simple as that.

  5. Beyond whether this guy should be fired or not, which is frankly getting less interesting by the minute, why did he think tweeting about molesting kids was a good idea? It is not like that isn’t a big deal and pretty much the most unpopular opinion you can possibly hold and has been that way for decades. Now there are a bunch of really strange tweets from Sarah Silverman and Michael Ian Black of them making one creepy pedophile joke after the next. They were years ago but that is beside the point. The whole thing is just strange and creepy. What the hell is wrong with these people?

    1. Yeah, some of his jokes reveal a creepy obsession with children. I don’t see what Disney did wrong considering children are their biggest audience. I wouldn’t want to associate with the guy either.

      1. I totally understand the idea that you shouldn’t lose your career because you once said something dumb. But I can’t for the life of me understand why someone would say the things they did. I have never gotten out of bed and thought “you know what is really funny? Screwing small children”. That has just never crossed my mind. And I honestly can’t understand how it could anyone else’s.

        1. Go and watch a Troma movie, if you already haven’t. I think it’ll become a lot more clear.

          1. I’ve seen Troma films (Toxic Avenger Series, Clash of Nuke Em High) and I didn’t see anything approaching what Gunn put in his tweets in any of those films.

        2. I have never gotten out of bed and thought “you know what is really funny? Screwing small children”.

          I’m not sure “funny” was the motivation. Or at least not “primary funny”.

          The goal was not “tell a joke, get a laugh”. (At least, having known lots of people like this, and, admittedly, having acted this way myself in the past.)

          The goal was “Say something horrifying. Make other people freak out and shit themselves over what you said. Laugh at those people.”

          And so, with that algorithm in place, one aspires to say the most horrifying things possible. And thus, “jokes” about murder, pedophilia, cannibalism, etc.

          I don’t tell dead baby jokes any more. If someone were to ask why, I would probably boil it down as “I grew up.” Admittedly, I gave that sort of thing up when I was 20 or so, and Gunn seems to have kept at it until he was 40, but I suppose some people develop slowly.

          1. Pedophiles are fucking immature assholes.

    2. What the hell is wrong with these people?

      When Ronan Farrow first pitched his investigation that eventually nuked Weinstein, he initially proposed doing a multi-part series on Hollywood’s dark underbelly, covering racism, pedophilia, and sexual assault in the industry. It’s telling that his editors only allowed him to chase after the last one and told him not to report on the first two. It’s not like pedophilia in the industry isn’t its biggest open secret after the casting couch, and every time someone accidentally spills the beans, like Elijah Wood, they’re forced to cover it up or walk it back. I can’t imagine what Farrow might have found if he had gone down that road.

      1. There is a guy on twitter named Thomas Wichter. He is a total crank but was actually a magazine journalist in Hollywood for most of the 80s and into the early 90s. He says that it is rampant. That the people in power quickly get bored with fucking adult actors who will do anything for a part and move onto the bigger thrill kids. He says he would often be at parties or at people’s homes and they would accidentally let him see a piece of child porn or something to see if he was hip to it.

        I have no idea if he is telling the truth. And as I say he is a bit of a crank. But what he is saying is totally believable and likely true. Even cranks tell the truth sometimes.

        1. He says he would often be at parties or at people’s homes and they would accidentally let him see a piece of child porn or something to see if he was hip to it.

          That part’s believable because it’s a common feature in the stories of people who were sexually molested as children, or were put in situations where that could have happened. The molester showed them some porn of the gay or kiddie persuasion, or rubbed up against them with their genitals, and if the potential victim freaked out, they’d try to play it off like it was an accident and typically stopped trying anything. If they froze in shock or didn’t resist out of confusion, the molester would proceed to abuse them.

          “Accidentally” probably should have been put in scare quotes because that shit is never an accident. They’re deliberately trying to find out if they can act like a degenerate, kiddy-diddling piece of shit around those people.

        2. I believe this is possible.

          Look at how hard they project.

          Plus they’re not exactly bastions of morality as we all know.

          I really wish someone would have the balls to investigate this.

        3. If you were to frequent crazydaysandnights.net (Hollywood blind gossip site) you’d see that it’s way worse than you think.

          I’m beginning to suspect that Ronan Farrow on Weinstein was just a “limited hangout” as they say in the spy trade. For those of you that don’t know, a limited hangout is where you reveal just enough to satisfy the press, so they will stop looking further and therefore avoid finding the really juicy bits.

      2. When Ronan Farrow first pitched his investigation that eventually nuked Weinstein, he initially proposed doing a multi-part series on Hollywood’s dark underbelly, covering racism, pedophilia, and sexual assault in the industry. It’s telling that his editors only allowed him to chase after the last one and told him not to report on the first two.

        Hell, Milo’s career was killed due to bringing up the big pedophilia problem in Hollywood (he mentioned in that JRE interview that the party he was at had a lot of AWFULLY young boys there). Why is Corey Haim persona non grata while the media adores Rose McGowan? Haim has been out there for a while and is actually naming names. McGowan is just “me too” shit at this point.

        1. Corey Haim is dead. You’re thinking of his friend, Corey Feldman.

    3. And he WORKS FOR DISNEY!!

      If you were the CEO of Disney, would you let a liability like that around your studio lot? Face it, no one here is pointing out the most important thing: FACTS MATTER. The guy was NOT joking, he is, in fact, a pedophile. He eats with them (Lloyd Kaurman, Huston Huddelson that we know of), follows them on social media, they follow him on social media. They only problem I see is why it took Disney several years to find the spine to fire this creep, when it only took them 20 minutes to shit can Roseanne. And to be fair, nobody thinks that Roseanne is a racist from reading that tweet considering her life and her explanation of it, but reading Gunn’s tweets and his explanation of them, I still think that Gunn is a kiddie diddler.

  6. No one should mourn Robespierre being sent to the guillotine. The man got consumed by the forces he helped unleash

    1. Absolutely.

      I cheered when I read that for the first time. I even did a moonwalk.

      Fuck him.

  7. Did Hollywood help Roseanne or even Nick Di Paolo or Owen Benjamin?

    Of course not. They wrong think.

    It’s not about the principles.

  8. So let me ask this: are the people that dug up his past the assholes here or Disney for firing him?

    1. Both?

      I’ll got with both.

      1. It’s assholes as far down as the eye can see.

    2. Trick question. Everyone is. The people that dug up his past. Disney. The people showing up to defend him. The republicans who think this is awesome karma. The people taking the middle ground on the internet. The dude who made the cheesesteak I had for lunch. Fans of the Cleveland Browns. Even that cute little puppy over there.

      1. Good God, man! Haven’t Browns fans suffered enough?

        1. Not quite. They did sign Josh Gordon, after all.

      2. I AM GROOT!

    3. Disney, without any doubt whatsoever. Gunn said those things, Disney fired him because they are the brand of sanitized and manufactured bullshit. It was never really fully understood why Disney hired him in the first place given his roots, but it paid off big for both Gunn and Disney.

      1. Disney fired him because they are the brand of sanitized and manufactured bullshit.

        Uh, that was yesterday.
        Disney today is ESPN, PC politics in every form of production, left wing or no wing.

        1. Disney today is about money, and it’s harder to make money when there is controversy surrounding your brand. They are all about the widest possible demographic band, and this is how they do that.

          Frankly, Disney will fire a director over a whole lot less than this. Gunn’s days were always numbered at Disney.

          1. Yet Disney is anxiously killing off every money making brand they have.

            It takes SKILL to make Star Wars unprofitable.

          2. But those tweets had been out there for YEARS, and they didn’t fire Gunn until Cernovich lit a fire under their ass.

    4. Just like the universe is just collections of stars orbiting giant cosmic assholes at the centers of galaxies, Hollywood is a microcosm of this eternal phenomenon.

    5. Dug up his past? You fucking kidding me? All they had to do was go to his Twitter feed and scroll for a while.

      Imagine if Trump had those kinds of tweets in his history.

    6. I think it’s the guy who makes jokes about fucking kids and pals around with a dude convicted of possessing child porn, but that’s just me.

  9. “cyberNazi”

    Besides the fact that this is a great band name, this is a pretty crazy assertion

    1. A death metal band should take the name just for the free publicity.

    2. Yeah, it really puts you in kind of a bind.

      “Wait, so… only Nazis object to pedophilia? I suddenly feel strangely conflicted about every ethos which is not Nazism.”

    3. I assumed that it was his way of saying that he might not be in Guardians of the Galaxy 3 but he’d be open to a role in Iron Skies 3.

  10. The progressive left created this atmosphere.

    AND ONLY THE PROGRESSIVE LEFT despite what To Be Sure Robby says.

    1. Wait, this is all Al Gore’s fault?

      1. Probably.

      2. Of course it is. If it weren’t for his damned invention, Twitter wouldn’t even be a thing!

  11. I have trouble getting excited over conflicts between people who deserve each other.

  12. It’s all the ridiculous articles like this that prompted me to cancel my Reason subscription.

    1. Yeah usually there’s a point.
      This is one step up from HalfPo.

  13. So this was the same Disney that fired Roseanne over her tweets. And I was told on multiple occasions that it was because Disney “had gone full SJW” and was putting ideology over profits. Now Disney fires Gunn, a liberal in good standing, who also evidently supported Roseanne’s firing, based on 10-year-old tweets. How is this Disney’s SJWism run amok? It seems instead that these decisions are being made (a) to preserve the image of Disney’s brand as kid-friendly/family-friendly, and (b) out of an almost paranoid sense of risk aversion. Not because they’ve “gone SJW”.

    1. PC…SJW….whatever.

      Can we all agree it’s bad for free speech?

      /Still blames the progressive left.

      1. No, it’s NOT bad for “free speech.”

    2. I’m not so sure, given the recent strong push to tar conservatives as child molesters.

    3. LOL of course there’s a Bob Iger truther here.

    4. There is no comparison between what Roseanne tweeted and what this guy tweeted. Child sexual abuse is its own category. Also she did it once and immediately deleted it, while he did it dozens of times and left the tweets up for years (he could have deleted them at any time).

      That said, I really don’t quibble with ABC firing Roseanne; she was probably not worth the trouble she was causing. A better comparison is Samantha Bee, who (surprise!) appears to have gotten away with far worse attacks on Ivanka Trump.

    5. See which one gets quietly hired back in the next year or so…

  14. When I heard it, I wasn’t angry; I knew Gunn, I knew he was head-strong, talking loud, saying stupid jokes on Twitter. So when he turned up fired, I let it go. And I said to myself, this is the business we’ve chosen; I didn’t ask who gave the order, because it had nothing to do with business!

    1. So….enjoy your cake.

      Different scene but whatev.

    2. He had an idea – to make a movie with a talking raccoon and tree, a holdover for nerds between Avengers movies.
      This was a great man – a man of vision and guts. And there isn’t even a plaque – or a signpost – or a statue of him in that town! Someone retweeted him! I didn’t ask who

  15. if people are punished despite changing, then what does that teach people about owning mistakes and evolving?

    The most intelligent response I’ve read to this. If we make “one strike and you’re out” the policy, then there is no incentive for growth and maturity, and the firing squads will eventually be formed in circles. Even Mao allowed the possibility of “re-education”.

    1. It’s the same with Hader. They’re losing their minds over something he said when he was 17. He’s 23. There’s a lot than can change in six years at that age. And even at 23 that’s not even mature.

      But let’s grill him anyway. AND THEY GAVE HIM A STANDING OVATION! OMG OMG OMG!!!! TRUMP’S ‘MURICA!

      1. I’m so happy 17-25-year-old stupid me didn’t have social media around to record every dumbass thing I–and every young person–said and did. I’d never have gotten a job.

        1. You’re not kidding. You and millions of us.

        2. Sports writers/commentators, again as if we didn’t have enough proof, showed how they’re possibly the worst kind of pant shitting assholes with this story.

          1. Jimmy the Greek was framed.

        3. That’s the reality today’s young people face. They’re painfully aware of it, and for those with the talent for success in life, it makes them pathologically cautious. They know, in today’s world in which everyone’s entire history is a few clicks away and school and home discipline issues frequently end up in the hands of police, getting into trouble of any kind can shut down their entire future. Yes, youthful excesses can have lasting consequences in any world, but they also make youth fun and interesting. Today, high risk-aversion is causing many young people to avoid fun and adventure and miss out on the pleasures of youth.

          1. Are we chalking up baby-fucking jokes and being an ongoing pal of a guy convicted of possessing child porn as “youthful excess” now?

    2. Companies scanning sites for dumb shit you posted years ago are practicing “no strikes and you’re out” so at least getting one strike is something.

    3. And when the Left stops pulling this shit with the Right, I’ll worry more.

      But, Progs are allowed to use gay as a slur for conservatives they don’t like and nobody seems to give two shits.

    4. 1. It ain’t one strike. He glorified child sexual abuse in dozens of tweets.
      2. Is someone saying he should be murdered, sent to prison for life, etc? Because that’s what you’re presenting as the alternative to just letting him get away with this.
      3. Nothing Gunn has said in the aftermath indicates he thinks he did anything wrong, so I’m not seeing what the incentive for growth and maturity would be.

    5. And I’d buy that…except they only call for that kind of treatment for their ideological brethren.

  16. Just realized Bushwick was supposed to be insightful social commentary.

  17. This man is one of the good ones.

    Go Team!

    Gunn, for his part, has apologized for the old tweets.

    Which is part of the problem. Take a page from the President’s playbook and tell the world to fuck directly off. The ONLY power the media has is that which you give it. Stop apologizing!

    1. But first, inherit millions of dollars so you don’t have to worry about being unemployable.

      1. Pretty sure Gunn never needs to work another day of his life.

        1. Well, if he was smart enough to invest instead of just spending his capital.

  18. We need a way to measure Twitstorms. Something with Category ‘X’ Twitstorm would work for me.

    Also, perhaps a way of weighting blue checkmarks. It’s the only way to do real journalism.

    1. We’d have to name the major twitstorms like hurricanes.

      “Twump”

      “Twoll”

      ‘Twick or tweat”

  19. Ideology aside, anybody who thinks that spurring a mob on to attack somebody is a good idea needs to think about it some more. It’s like a war: it quickly gets out of control. Twitter mobbing is something anyone can do, without even stirring from their living room. Why are the leftists so shocked?

    1. An interesting game, professor. It seems the only winning move is not to play.

  20. They fired Roseanne. They fired Gunn.

    When that parades of assholes is calling for Barr to be re-hired, I’ll think they understand.

    But I won’t hold my breath–because Gunn was part of the cybernazi mob that got Roseanne fired.

    Principles, Reason–do you remember them?

    1. Somebody can fact check me, but I could swear there was at least one article here that did say that what happened to Roseanne was bad.

      1. I think he is talking about the assholes defending gun in the tweets not the assholes defending Gunn at reason.

      2. Robby (the guy that everyone trashes) has defended Roseanne and has been consistent on this point

  21. An industry that lives and dies on utter and absolute zero tolerance for everything everywhere from everyone for all time will eventually cut its own throat. When they’re done purging their ranks of all the white men, then the straight men then all the whites, then all the straights, then all the US citizens then anyone who’s ever set foot in a church then everyone to the right of Pol Pot, they may or may not still function as a viable industry that makes a product or CAN make a product anyone will plunk down $15 to see. Who knows? They could be right and all of us could, since the dawn of time, be wrong. I do know that it don’t care. So one more comic book movie gets directed by some other interchangeable nobody who’s personal input into the creative process is nothing. So what? Maybe the movie theaters can do background checks on all the ticket purchasers too and then decide whether they’re fit to see it.

  22. Fun fact: they are dumping GOTG for Asgardians of the galaxy, so who needed this jerk anyway?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Asgardians_of_the_Galaxy

    (not that Disney would make up an excuse to fire anyone – – – – – – – – – – – – )

  23. So what were the actual jokes? Because I’ve heard some pretty funny dead baby jokes in my time, and with Dave Bautista’s delivery they could really fit in well in a GoG movie.

    1. They were unfunny deeply creepy jokes about being a child molester. They are really odd and unfunny.

      1. It’s possible they were intended as cringe humor.

        However, if you’re a public figure and you have that kind of stuff lurking on your Twitter history, you’re pretty much asking for it. And if the excuse is that he was young and stupid back then, keep in mind that Gunn could have deleted those tweets at any time in the intervening years when he became a star but he didn’t.

        1. Gunn’s 51 now so he would have been around 40 when originally posted those tweets.

    2. They were not jokes. A joke has a set up and a punchline. What did the Jewish pervert say to the kid on the playground? “Hey little girl, want to buy some candy?” That’s a joke. Gunn’s tweets were just punchlines, intended (so he says) to be shocking. They were shocking. (Read them your self, they’re not hard to find.) What is shocking is that Disney would continue to employ him for years afterwards.

      Gunn was known to associate with convicted child porn distributors and NAMBLA members.

      He wasn’t joking.

  24. Making them an issue now is an act of pure retaliation against the left (Gunn is a liberal), perpetrated by far-right hypocrites who are just as committed to weaponizing P.C. culture as anyone on the other side of the spectrum.

    Non-sequitur.

    The fact that people on the right are willing to weaponize PC culture, the way the left has, does not imply that they are “just as committed” as the left is.

    “I don’t want to pick up my sword, but if you attack me and force me to pick up my sword, I will not put it down until I have killed you with it.”

  25. I know others have said it, but screw Gunn. I don’t approve of the online lynching. But I’m tired of being the only motherf*cker charging the windmill.

    So let it burn. What the left started, the right will finish. Those of us that are smart enough to stay hidden will pick up the pieces after jerks on both sides are done killing each other.

    1. I like this comment

  26. This type of witch hunt to harm people by either applying idiotic standards or apply standards of today, to yesterday’s actions, are incredibly dangerous, stupid, and idiotic. However, it gets harder and harder to stand up for victim’s on the Left, when they not only don’t show up to rally on the side of similar victim’s on the Right, but often are the first people throwing stones.

  27. I suppose the peaceful man who pulls a gun on an armed robber is a hypocrite as well? Maybe the picked on kid who punches out his bully is a hypocrite?

  28. I posted a GIF of a sad baby Groot. That wasn’t mentioned in the article because my last few films failed at the box office.

  29. Fuck you Hollywood asshats.

    Your movies suck balls.

  30. “They’re disgusting, but they were clearly intended as gags.”

    I don’t know what to make of this.

    If the guy said “I came on my face watching female genital mutilation or lynching” no prominent liberals would be defending him. Whether the jokes were a “gag” or that Gunn is actually a decent person would not be an issue. Context never mattered to the PC mob.

    I recall that a CBS exec was fired for suggesting that victims of the Vegas shooting victims were likely republicans (country music fans) and they deserved to be shot. If Twitter users pointed out to such public statements, they’re a mob?

    Enough already. According to Reason’s logic, people of color (such as myself) would be engaging in mob behavior for simply expressing outrage at a racist joke and consequently arguing in favor of companies firing / discipline the speaker. Never mind that I wouldn’t resort to death threats, real cyber bullying, doxxing, physically confronting the person, or doing anything that an actual “mob” would do.

    #Metoo has already claimed many a career based on nothing but comments and hearsay. Reason knows this. It’s not hypocritical for people on this side to point out any inconsistencies in how they operate. Disney could either fire Gunn in keeping with their PC policy, or they could stand by Gunn and say “From this point we will give more weight to free speech and due process”. If they left accepts Gunn but merrily goes after Ben Shapiro on campus, why, that’s a double standard.

  31. Right-wing trolls & hypocrites. Such vitriol from Joe. Shall we look at a comparable example? Say, Kevin Williamson?

    Ctrl-F “hypocrite”
    Ctrl-F “left-wing troll”

    Huh. Seems like Joey is mighty upset all of a sudden. Sucks when those torpedoes circle back.

    Of course he didn’t mention that Ben Shapiro, Glenn Beck, and other conservatives argued in favor of Gunn. No, this assault on all that is holy must not stand!

    For supposedly being the smart and educated ones, it’s rather pathetic that libertarians don’t even understand optimal prisoner dilemma strategy. Or maybe this one does and he doesn’t like the fact that his side was caught cheating. Sinister or stupid, you decide.

    1. Of course he didn’t mention that Ben Shapiro, Glenn Beck, and other conservatives argued in favor of Gunn. No, this assault on all that is holy must not stand!

      And those guys are tiresome. I actually side with Cernovich on this.

      “Nobody at the Atlantic wants to write for National Review. Every single writer at NR would jump at the chance to write for the Atlantic. Understand this and you understand conservative media”.

      He’s not wrong. At all.

  32. The tweets from Gunn, who directed the first two Guardians of the Galaxy films, involved violence and sexual assault against children. They’re disgusting, but they were clearly intended as gags.

    Curious, did you have the same reaction to Trump’s pussy-grab remark on that unused Access Hollywood tape?

    1. Oh, good question. Trump wasn’t saying he did it, just that women let stars do it.

      Which, mind you, is undeniably true.

      Where is this mourning for the lack of context with that?

      1. I think that this says volumes more about women and the #metoo movement than it does about any celebrity/star.

  33. You helped build the bonfire and said it was good. We warned you, but you didn’t listen. And when the guys with the gas truck show up and start throwing gas on the flames, you waited until you got burned to start protesting the throwing of gas on flames. But did you learn anything? I doubt it – you probably think the lesson is “be careful when throwing gas on flames”. The lesson is – maybe you should listen to the people who tried warning you about building the fire in the first place.

    See, the SJW’s were the ones applauding the building of the fire and it was never a good idea, it’s not a matter of good intentions gone bad. They’re not interested in being social, they hate this society with a white-hot passion. They’re not out for justice, they’re out for vengeance. They aren’t warriors, they’re berserkers. They want to fucking burn it all down and they want your head roasting on a pike stuck in the flames. Are we clear about their intentions vis-?-vis the building of fires yet?

  34. I feel compelled to mention that “The Right” is not really some monolithic thing and any claims of hypocrisy need to be addressed to individuals. I am certain that some people on “The Right” don’t give a crap about this latest episode in our cultural drama, as I am equally certain that some do…and, of course, that some merely pretend to be out for justice. Try not to build a story about culture on nothing more than a common assertion.

  35. So by your logic, if I am against criminalizing possession of marijuana, that means I’m not allowed to complain when a cop gets off scot free when caught with weed, the same cop who threw hundreds of normal people in jail for the same offense.

    1. You’re not “allowed” to want the cop to go to prison.

  36. “The crocodile we’ve bred and fed to eat the Right isn’t supposed to turn on us!”

  37. So what is it the commenters expect to happen? At some point “the left” or “SJWs” will wave the white flag and uniformly declare a truce? If the point is to get them to understand the badness of this behavior, how will you tell when the message has sunk in and your mission is complete, and you can stop employing the tactics you claim to oppose? How do you know it is not this event, at least for the people being targeted? Where does it end?

    And if there is no end, is it worth it or justified to do these bad things? If it’s a means* to an end that will not come or that you cannot reasonably define, doesn’t that just make you an asshole hypocrite too? Fine, maybe not as big of an asshole as those other people, because they started it!, but I don’t see too great of a moral difference there. Maybe it’s enough to let you sleep at night, I dunno.

    *and ignoring that there are other means that don’t require you to act in the way you claim to decry

    1. How’s that #metoo doing these days? Got a little quiet when those scalps starting hitting closer to home, didn’t it?

      As to your other questions, why don’t you raise them with the Left? What do you realistically think the Left will do if it does not have to pay a price for its mobs? They’ll stop because otherwise Robby will call them hypocrites? Will he even? Will you? Or will you just be content to have the status quo ante because you recognize the maturity of the Right not stooping to the same level? (You in the back, stop laughing!)

      *and ignoring that there are other means that don’t require you to act in the way you claim to decry

      Such as? You have clear evidence of them working? Plenty of stories to relate how whenever the Left scores a culture war victory it acts graciously, right? Once you bake the goddamn cake, of course.

      And as to evidence that reciprocation works, I give you a tweet from this very article:

      Can’t believe what Disney is doing to @JamesGunn This nonsense culture of zero tolerance has to stop.

      Seems like a tiny bit of awareness has crept into one head at least.

    2. “Let the Left destroy all you hold dear because fighting back is bad, m’kay?”

    3. Where does it end?

      With luck, and hard work, with the Left dead and gone and so disgraced that it never stains existence again.

  38. Making them an issue now is an act of pure retaliation against the left (Gunn is a liberal), perpetrated by far-right hypocrites who are just as committed to weaponizing P.C. culture as anyone on the other side of the spectrum.

    Or they’re smart enough to understand the right will never succeed in reversing this SJW campaign because they’ll be portrayed as abusers trying to protect themselves. Forcing normal liberals to live by the SJW rules is the only way to demonstrate their illegitimacy. These normal liberals will never stand up for abuse targeted at non-leftists including libertarians.

    So maybe look down the path more than one step.

  39. The cast of GOTG could refuse to reprise their roles if Gunn is not rehired. Problem solved.

    I don’t feel sorry for the Proggies, though. They always turn on each other. The professor from Evergreen College learned the hard way as well.

  40. What part of zero tolerance do these progressives not understand?

  41. So do something instead of just “voicing” support. Stop the filming and let Disney take a bath.

  42. So do something instead of just “voicing” support. Stop the filming and let Disney take a bath.

  43. “…perpetrated by far-right hypocrites who are just as committed to weaponizing P.C. culture…”

    After years of trying to be better than the moderate left and MSM, some on the right adopted their same tactics. They are now called the “far-right.”

  44. People who think that they should fight fire with fire usually die, trapped in a burning building.

    Destroying someone over a tweet will only result in a fear of saying anything and ultimately end up with a hate speech exception to the

    1. 1st Amendment.

      1. 1st Amendment only applies to the gubbmint, asshat.

        Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

        Does it mention private parties anywhere in there?

  45. Bautista is right that nobody should be fired for jokes, especially long after the fact. But Gunn himself has a history of demanding that exactly that be done to other people, and what goes around comes around. Suck it up, SJW.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.