James Gunn

[Siro]

It's been 40 years, so while I will do my best to say things accurately, I'm only human.

As soon as you asked the question, my mind went back to my first job at a place called The Red Barn, on Lindell Ave. in St. Louis. I was 15, and my family needed the money, so I did not feel like I could leave the job.

I did worked with a racially mixed crew, and on many evenings I was the only white employee. I recall one of my shift managers, in particular, that took a strong dislike to me. Work that was adequate for other employees wan't good enough (or so it seemed to me), and he wouldn't help me or offer advice like he did for the other employees.

However, he couldn't add on the weight of society with his actions. None of the names he could have called me (I don't think he did, this is just hypothetical) would have had any meaning to my being white. His boss was white, and it the treatment got too bad I could have gone the manager, and felt pretty confident I would be listened to.

The shift manager had no continuous participation with how society treated me, rather everything else in my life treated me like I was white. When I was walking home, I wasn't worried about the police stopping me because I fit the description of "white guy, medium height". Any of the few times I did interact with the police, they were respectful and polite, and I never felt threatened. At home, almost all the TV shows has white heroes. At the movies, I never lacked for solid white role models. My teachers showed me the respect white students get.

So, could the manager treat me badly on account of my whiteness, or dislike me for it? Yes. Could they be a part of a societal power structure that made my being white difficult for me in myriad ways over myriad spheres? No.

All right. Thanks.

I'm not a fan of judging individual actions through sociological statistics. I also think whoever's in power is incidental and always subject to change. It's unfortunate that the self-styled progressives are pushing us toward a world that reinforces racial identity as an integral part of society, and yet, disregards racial discrimination (almost encourage it, if I'm being honest) if it doesn't meet some litmus test.

 

[One Brow]

All right. Thanks.

I'm not a fan of judging individual actions through sociological statistics. I also think whoever's in power is incidental and always subject to change. It's unfortunate that the self-styled progressives are pushing us toward a world that reinforces racial identity as an integral part of society, and yet, disregards racial discrimination (almost encourage it, if I'm being honest) if it doesn't meet some litmus test.

Perhaps "who is in power" is subject to change, but white people have been in power here for 400 years, and built up power structures over that time to reinforce their monopoly, so it's not incidental.

As long as people treat others differently based on race, there will be differing racial experiences, and so differing racial identities.

 

[Siro]

Perhaps "who is in power" is subject to change, but white people have been in power here for 400 years, and built up power structures over that time to reinforce their monopoly, so it's not incidental.

As long as people treat others differently based on race, there will be differing racial experiences, and so differing racial identities.

A better approach would be the rejection of race as legitimate identity and working toward its elimination. NOT the reinforcement of the legitimacy of racial identity and ethnic differences, then acting shocked when people become ethno-nationalist and racially prejudiced.

 

[ONE LOVE]

Ok so I watched Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 2 last night.

It was actually better than the first 1 for me. What sets it apart from the 1st movie for me was how much 'heart' it had and the theme of not judging the book by its cover and how people (or creatures) from all walks of life can co-exist and even form a 'family'.

As an example there were scenes where Drax, the big blunt ugly guy, would talk about his inner emotions and connecting with other characters at a deeper level. I initially didn't really like this character in the Vol. 1 and though he's a bit rough and didn't belong in this group of 'heroes', but he really grew on me in Vol. 2.

Another character that really surprised me was Yondu, the rough ravage that was one of the bad guys in Vol. 1. But in Vol. 2 we learned that he was actually a 'dad' figure to Peter Quill (the main protagonist), and when it's all said and done he was a loveable guy and the scenes involving him at the end brought tears to my eyes.

Anyway, what I wanted to say was, James Gunn wrote and directed both Vo. 1 and Vol. 2, and it would be a damn shame for him to be fired for things he did years ago that wasn't even illegal. He is like Yondu. He did things that he wasn't proud of. But does that mean his life should end there in Vol. 1 as a bad guy?

No. I think James Gunn deserves a chance to turn his life around and to be punished for the rest of his life for what he did years ago - I think the world would be worse for it. He still has a lot to offer and it would be a shame 'sentence' for the rest of his career this way.

 

[Archie Moses]

I can think of few things whiter than quoting Dr. King without understanding what he actually stood for.

You're making things too complicated, dude.

I can't think of many things more simple than we are all equal regardless of color. A human is a human and it's a damn shame if you treat someone differently based off of their skin color.

 

[Archie Moses]

Ok so I watched Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 2 last night.

It was actually better than the first 1 for me. What sets it apart from the 1st movie for me was how much 'heart' it had and the theme of not judging the book by its cover and how people (or creatures) from all walks of life can co-exist and even form a 'family'.

As an example there were scenes where Drax, the big blunt ugly guy, would talk about his inner emotions and connecting with other characters at a deeper level. I initially didn't really like this character in the Vol. 1 and though he's a bit rough and didn't belong in this group of 'heroes', but he really grew on me in Vol. 2.

Another character that really surprised me was Yondu, the rough ravage that was one of the bad guys in Vol. 1. But in Vol. 2 we learned that he was actually a 'dad' figure to Peter Quill (the main protagonist), and when it's all said and done he was a loveable guy and the scenes involving him at the end brought tears to my eyes.

Anyway, what I wanted to say was, James Gunn wrote and directed both Vo. 1 and Vol. 2, and it would be a damn shame for him to be fired for things he did years ago that wasn't even illegal. He is like Yondu. He did things that he wasn't proud of. But does that mean his life should end there in Vol. 1 as a bad guy?

No. I think James Gunn deserves a chance to turn his life around and to be punished for the rest of his life for what he did years ago - I think the world would be worse for it. He still has a lot to offer and it would be a shame 'sentence' for the rest of his career this way.

This is a great post. Thx.

 

[JazzGal]

But isn't that the issue? It is easy for someone of the race that holds the most power to say that race should not be an issue. Race does not define the world for that person, so it is easy for them to hold this view. I rarely have to think about my race. But race defines nearly every aspect of life for minorities, and pretending otherwise does not make sense.

 

[Archie Moses]

But isn't that the issue? It is easy for someone of the race that holds the most power to say that race should not be an issue. Race does not define the world for that person, so it is easy for them to hold this view. I rarely have to think about my race. But race defines nearly every aspect of life for minorities, and pretending otherwise does not make sense.

Are you guys actually listening to what you're saying and thinking about it?

Maybe instead of simply pointing out, yeah, well, you're white so... Or implying I'm not aware of white privilege or minorities struggles because I think no one should write/say hatred or vile stereotypes towards a people because of their skin color.

Like I've said, I don't think she should be fired. I just think her tweets (a lot of them, not all of them) do more harm than good to society and are, well, racists and inexcusable. It's crazy to me this is even a discussion and arguments against it include my skin color, and people said mean things to her first.

It's simple really. Racists tweets are racist. No one should get a free pass on it.

 

[One Brow]

I can't think of many things more simple than we are all equal regardless of color. A human is a human and it's a damn shame if you treat someone differently based off of their skin color.

When all humans are treated the same, regardless of skin color, from birth to death, then there will be nothing to correct. To benefit as a white man in dozens of different ways on a daily basis, and then say, "I think in these few situations (ones where you think skin color selection is not entirely in your favor), we need to ignore skin color entirely" is self-serving, intentionally or not.

 

[Archie Moses]

When all humans are treated the same, regardless of skin color, from birth to death, then there will be nothing to correct. To benefit as a white man in dozens of different ways on a daily basis, and then say, "I think in these few situations (ones where you think skin color selection is not entirely in your favor), we need to ignore skin color entirely" is self-serving, intentionally or not.

This makes absolutely zero sense and is a contradiction.

Humans will never be "treated the same, regardless of skin color, from birth to death" if people keep being racists - Regardless. You don't get to selectively decide some bull **** standard that ignores clear cut racism and blames another group for it. That's called self-serving.

Nice chatting with you, but I'm done engaging with you - it's insulting, really.

 

[One Brow]

This makes absolutely zero sense and is a contradiction.

Humans will never be "treated the same, regardless of skin color, from birth to death" if people keep being racists - Regardless.

Yes, that's the point.

You don't get to selectively decide some bull **** standard that ignores clear cut racism and blames another group for it. That's called self-serving.

Funny how all the "clear-cut racism" examples you worry about are the ones that don't benefit white people.

 

[LogGrad98]

A better approach would be the rejection of race as legitimate identity and working toward its elimination. NOT the reinforcement of the legitimacy of racial identity and ethnic differences, then acting shocked when people become ethno-nationalist and racially prejudiced.

This. My neighbors here, most of them in fact, are either black or hispanic. At barbecues we have had discussions along these lines. They think, generally, that the concepts like "cultural appropriation" and the resultant backlash are among the most harmful things in recent years regarding race relations. My next-door neighbor (and current chess partner), who is black, rants about the fact that we will never be able to get past the race barrier as long as both sides keep propping it up. At some point we have to collectively stop actively making racial identity an issue, on both sides of the fence.


[note this is not an argument that it is fully equal, but one side setting the fire while the other squirts a little gas on it doesn't help anyone in the long run]

 

[LogGrad98]

Ok so I watched Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 2 last night.

It was actually better than the first 1 for me. What sets it apart from the 1st movie for me was how much 'heart' it had and the theme of not judging the book by its cover and how people (or creatures) from all walks of life can co-exist and even form a 'family'.

As an example there were scenes where Drax, the big blunt ugly guy, would talk about his inner emotions and connecting with other characters at a deeper level. I initially didn't really like this character in the Vol. 1 and though he's a bit rough and didn't belong in this group of 'heroes', but he really grew on me in Vol. 2.

Another character that really surprised me was Yondu, the rough ravage that was one of the bad guys in Vol. 1. But in Vol. 2 we learned that he was actually a 'dad' figure to Peter Quill (the main protagonist), and when it's all said and done he was a loveable guy and the scenes involving him at the end brought tears to my eyes.

Anyway, what I wanted to say was, James Gunn wrote and directed both Vo. 1 and Vol. 2, and it would be a damn shame for him to be fired for things he did years ago that wasn't even illegal. He is like Yondu. He did things that he wasn't proud of. But does that mean his life should end there in Vol. 1 as a bad guy?

No. I think James Gunn deserves a chance to turn his life around and to be punished for the rest of his life for what he did years ago - I think the world would be worse for it. He still has a lot to offer and it would be a shame 'sentence' for the rest of his career this way.

I appreciate the sentiment while I disagree about the characterization of Dax. His species is supposed to be incapable of abstract thought, being instead very literal by nature, and then he changes to a very abstract individual. The flashes of this in the first movie were endearing as it was a subtle poke at the foundation of the character, as they did for all of them at times. But in the second it bugged me in much the same way that the attitude of "hey a little of that was great, let's make it nothing but that" tends to make things way worse. But I agree with the aspect of the heart of the show. I liked the 1st one better than the second by quite a bit, but I thought it was a good follow-up.

I am not sure how this applies to Gunn however. I mean it's not like Harvey Weinstein only made misogynistic movies about treating women like ****. He has many movies in his catalog that had heart and were meaningful. Terrible people are capable of creating beautiful things sometimes.

I have reserved judgement really on Gunn, as I am trying to be open about a lot of these things as they come up, since we really have no way of knowing the truth unless it is more like Weinstein or Cosby. Earlier in this thread I mentioned Gunn appeared to be a douche, but douche or not, he deserves his day in court, so to speak, and not to be immediately judged by the court of public opinion, which recently is nothing more than a hang-man jury. We all do stupid things in our lives that we later regret, and when you have a public persona, with the inherent increased sphere if influence, that gets exaggerated far more than anything dumb most of us will ever do. Do we all deserve to be vilified and destroyed for our stupid moments, or are we allowed to learn and grow and apologize and make amends and move on? If I can stay stupid things in my 20's about my sister-in-law and apologize for it later and be forgiven why can't public figures be afforded the same courtesy?

But like I said, I reserve judgement. Because it is also easier for people with a public persona to get the help of their own propaganda machine to craft reasonable apologies and dismissals all while remaining a vile piece of ****. It is tough to say, but in our social media ivory towers we cannot really ever know the truth of it. I prefer to maintain the attitude that those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

 

[Siro]

This. My neighbors here, most of them in fact, are either black or hispanic. At barbecues we have had discussions along these lines. They think, generally, that the concepts like "cultural appropriation" and the resultant backlash are among the most harmful things in recent years regarding race relations. My next-door neighbor (and current chess partner), who is black, rants about the fact that we will never be able to get past the race barrier as long as both sides keep propping it up. At some point we have to collectively stop actively making racial identity an issue, on both sides of the fence.


[note this is not an argument that it is fully equal, but one side setting the fire while the other squirts a little gas on it doesn't help anyone in the long run]

One of my closest friends is black, and he rants non-stop about the problems he has with the progressives approach to race. In between his passionate rants about anime.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Yes, that's the point.



Funny how all the "clear-cut racism" examples you worry about are the ones that don't benefit white people.

I have viewed the many times this tactic or approach has been made by you as very kalnienk vision of you. My understanding based on what I read in the thread and the conversation is that Archie does not agree with racism of any sort, but is discussing just this small part of it because it seems to be a sticking point and difference in both of your ideas of what racism is. He is not discussing the other aspects of it because it is a common ground of agreement, or so he thought. You instead of discussing the point of disagreement to state what he thought was agreement is disingenuous or in the least a distraction tactic to get away from the point of the discussion.

All imo, and I am possibly taking some assumptions on Archie's part. He can correct me if I'm wrong. I have seen this in my discussions with you OB, and it takes the air out of the desire to converse with you, which may or may not be the point.

 

[Archie Moses]

I have viewed the many times this tactic or approach has been made by you as very kalnienk vision of you. My understanding based on what I read in the thread and the conversation is that Archie does not agree with racism of any sort, but is discussing just this small part of it because it seems to be a sticking point and difference in both of your ideas of what racism is. He is not discussing the other aspects of it because it is a common ground of agreement, or so he thought. You instead of discussing the point of disagreement to state what he thought was agreement is disingenuous or in the least a distraction tactic to get away from the point of the discussion.

All imo, and I am possibly taking some assumptions on Archie's part. He can correct me if I'm wrong. I have seen this in my discussions with you OB, and it takes the air out of the desire to converse with you, which may or may not be the point.

This is pretty spot on. I took One Brow's posts to pretty insulting, offensive, and misleading - especially the part where he says all of the racism I'm worried about is where it doesn't benefit white people. Wtf. I'm not sure how he came to that conclusion from what I wrote in this thread, but that's pretty damn insulting to assume that. Wish I could report that post because that's a helluva personal attack, but we know nothing would happen if I did.

The only reason I posted about this as much as I did is not because it's not in the benefit of white people (although, I must admit it gets tiresome being lumped in with racist people and not being able to have an opinion, or if I do it's automatically invalid, simply because I'm white) but because One Brow and others basically defended her tweets and brushed them under the table. That's not going to help anything imo. Saying her tweets were racists and wrong does not mean she hasn't dealt with racism, or whites are not in a position of power and privileged. It just means it was just as wrong for her to do it as anyone else. It's crazy the NYTs defended her, especially after just firing someone for practically the same thing. This **** is another one of the many reasons of why Trump won and our country is going crazy and down hill. I'm anti Trump too.

The argument that she was punching up is so blind, cliche and sheepish to say. I'm sorry, but if you graduated from Harvard Law school and post literally hundreds of tweets focused on your hatred of white men and women you're not punching up. You're actually abusing your position of power you have for bad instead of good. You're also an embarrassment and have some issues.

Condoning any racism or turning a blind eye to it is only going create more division. Granted, some of her tweets in context where jokes or points and I get it, but you're lying to yourself if you read most of the tweets and you think it's simply trolling the trolls. That's the dumbest free pass I've ever heard of. She didn't even apologize for her tweets.

I'd stand up for anyone on the receiving end of racism. Historically, humans have been pretty ****** - especially whites - because they focused on skin color. Let's stop with that out-dated, prehistoric, barbaric mentality and start treating humans as humans and judge them as individuals.

It's bizarre to me I even have to explain this or defend my statements. You know, cause I'm the bad guy and the problem with this.


Everyone here seems to get it except for one person. I'm glad the majority of people get it.

 

[One Brow]

I have viewed the many times this tactic or approach has been made by you as very kalnienk vision of you. My understanding based on what I read in the thread and the conversation is that Archie does not agree with racism of any sort, but is discussing just this small part of it because it seems to be a sticking point and difference in both of your ideas of what racism is. He is not discussing the other aspects of it because it is a common ground of agreement, or so he thought. You instead of discussing the point of disagreement to state what he thought was agreement is disingenuous or in the least a distraction tactic to get away from the point of the discussion.

You could be correct, in the abstract. In this thread, it's been all about Sarah Jeong's treatment vs. that for James Gunn.

All imo, and I am possibly taking some assumptions on Archie's part. He can correct me if I'm wrong. I have seen this in my discussions with you OB, and it takes the air out of the desire to converse with you, which may or may not be the point.

I do get tired of conversations that start from "I don't care if everything is equal right now, we have to equal treatment for everyone", because in the long run not correcting the unfair treatment of the past will just mean that it's influences will persist for generations.

 

[One Brow]

This is pretty spot on. I took One Brow's posts to pretty insulting, offensive, and misleading - especially the part where he says all of the racism I'm worried about is where it doesn't benefit white people.

Of course, you'll be able to put out a few topics that you started were you were raising an issue of racism against non-white people, right? Because, I'm just wrong about the things that upset you so much that you post about them.

and not being able to have an opinion, or if I do it's automatically invalid, simply because I'm white)

You're not any whiter than I am, skin-color wise.

It's crazy the NYTs defended her, especially after just firing someone for practically the same thing.

I offered you a link to a Vox article that went into detail over the differences between Norton's and Jeong's situations. You chose to not read it, which is fine, but it also means you're now willfully ignorant of these differences and basically whining because the surface differences are not to your liking.

This **** is another one of the many reasons of why Trump won and our country is going crazy and down hill. I'm anti Trump too.

I often hear from ultra-conservatives how it's the response to efforts to fight racism that make people vote for racists. Not that *you* are ultra-conservative, you just are parroting one of their talking points.

The argument that she was punching up is so blind, cliche and sheepish to say. I'm sorry, but if you graduated from Harvard Law school and post literally hundreds of tweets focused on your hatred of white men and women you're not punching up. You're actually abusing your position of power you have for bad instead of good.

The direction of the punch refers to your relative position. If she were making fun of the uneducated, or those who went to state schools, or the poor, that would indeed be punching down.

Condoning any racism or turning a blind eye to it is only going create more division.

I agree. Get more educated on the differences between Norton and Jeong, and stop condoning racism.

It's bizarre to me I even have to explain this or defend my statements. You know, cause I'm the bad guy and the problem with this.

Do you really believe Jeong has a plan to make white people breed less?

Everyone here seems to get it except for one person. I'm glad the majority of people get it.

The first commentator said the tweets were not racist. Why didn't her opinion register on you?

 

[Archie Moses]

Of course, you'll be able to put out a few topics that you started were you were raising an issue of racism against non-white people, right? Because, I'm just wrong about the things that upset you so much that you post about them.

Yes, I've made posts/threads that defend white people being on the receiving end of wrong. Just like I've made posts/threads about *insert any color or race here* of people being on the receiving end of wrong too. I've done it for both in this thread alone. I try and be consistent. I can admit when I'm wrong (unless it's a basketball post) and I'm willing to learn, see things from different perspectives and grow as a person.

I'm sure if you bumped some posts of threads I've made in the past I'd probably cringe, but at the same time I'd be happy because I'd be able to see how I've grown and changed e.g. When I was religious, I used to defend marriage being between a man and woman, abortion and Planned Parenthood.

You're not any whiter than I am, skin-color wise.

I'm probably not. I get asked often if I'm Mexican.

I offered you a link to a Vox article that went into detail over the differences between Norton's and Jeong's situations. You chose to not read it, which is fine, but it also means you're now willfully ignorant of these differences and basically whining because the surface differences are not to your liking.

Look, dude, I didn't read it for a few reasons. First, it drives me crazy reading things on sites like Mother Goose, Breitbart, the Federalist, Buzzfeed, etc. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Vox is a progressive liberal website that spews bias?

Just because I didn't read your article it doesn't mean I'm willfully ignorant. I actually read a lot of opinion pieces on the matter. I disagree with a lot of the points they try to make. If you condone her tweets or think she was trolling the trolls, you're wrong.

I often hear from ultra-conservatives how it's the response to efforts to fight racism that make people vote for racists. Not that *you* are ultra-conservative, you just are parroting one of their talking points.

I mean, they just said that in the video I posted from CNN. I'm not sure if it's actually true, but it makes you wonder how the hell Trump got elected. I certainly think when you make things more personal and emotional for groups of people, it engages them to do things.

It's funny you're saying I'm parroting though. If I'm a parrot, you're a sheep.

The direction of the punch refers to your relative position. If she were making fun of the uneducated, or those who went to state schools, or the poor, that would indeed be punching down.

When she says white people, it also includes the uneducated, the poor, the middle class and those who fight for minorities because she's generalizing. If she's going to "punch down" she should call out specific people - not a group of people based on their skin color.

The idea that she's punching up is bull **** imo.

I agree. Get more educated on the differences between Norton and Jeong, and stop condoning racism.

If you can explain how you condone Jeong's tweets and condemn Norton's without mentioning their skin color, I'm all ears.

Do you really believe Jeong has a plan to make white people breed less?

No, I don't necessarily believe she wants white people to breed less, but I also wouldn't be surprised if she did. If she's willing to say what she says publically, imagine the trash she says to her friends and behind closed doors. She has some serious hatred towards white people. I read her twitter feed not just the few tweets the media uses in their articles.



[QUOTE="One Brow, post: 1639866, member: 74"The first commentator said the tweets were not racist. Why didn't her opinion register on you?[/QUOTE]
The same reason your opinion isn't registering with me. It's wrong and causes more problems and division.

 

[One Brow]

Look, dude, I didn't read it for a few reasons. First, it drives me crazy reading things on sites like Mother Goose, Breitbart, the Federalist, Buzzfeed, etc. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Vox is a progressive liberal website that spews bias?

Vox has a liberal point of view, but it is much closer to Mother Jones or the National Review than Breitbart or Buzzfeed. Sites can have a specific point of view and still present interesting, detailed, rational opinions (liberal or conservative).

The really funny thing is that, had you read the article, you could of used it to crow about something you were completely right about in this very thread.

Just because I didn't read your article it doesn't mean I'm willfully ignorant. I actually read a lot of opinion pieces on the matter. I disagree with a lot of the points they try to make. If you condone her tweets or think she was trolling the trolls, you're wrong.

Jeong's twitter feed, looked at in the context of tweets she was responding to, says otherwise.

I mean, they just said that in the video I posted from CNN.

"They" who?

It's funny you're saying I'm parroting though. If I'm a parrot, you're a sheep.

Possibly. You should always question what you believe about yourself.

When she says white people, it also includes the uneducated, the poor, the middle class and those who fight for minorities because she's generalizing. If she's going to "punch down" she should call out specific people - not a group of people based on their skin color.

You can be privileged in one way and oppressed in another. Poor, white people still get all the benefits of being white, just as rich black people get the benefits of being rich. If you can call out injustice on a race/gender/class/orientation/body match group/religion axis because some members of that race/gender/class/orientation/body match group/religion are not in a privileged class in every single group, you could never talk about injustice in the world.

The idea that she's punching up is bull **** imo.

Dissing white people is punching up for anyone not white.

If you can explain how you condone Jeong's tweets and condemn Norton's without mentioning their skin color, I'm all ears.

Jeong was reactive in her posts, Norton was active in hers.

The same reason your opinion isn't registering with me. It's wrong and causes more problems and division.

If you only allow the opinions of the people you agree with to have any impact on you, you will narrow yourself.