Endorsement? That anyone could read "endorsement" into those jokes, in which pedophiles and Nambla are the clear butt of the joke, is fascinating.
1. yes endorsement, google it, his old pal Husten Huddelston is convicted pedo and Gunn's comments about other pedos speak for themselves, it qualifies as network, there are journalists on this already, more will come out.
2.As for Nambla being the "clear butt of "jokes". Lol, that is in your head. All of Gunn's "jokes" are about raping or sexually misusing children and their sexual abuse & humiliation making him "extremely happy". NONE of the comments make fun OF pedophiles. Or show me just one that makes fun about the child rapist, just one speaking against Nambla amidst all the pro child rape depravity...you can't.... What a pity that Mr Gunn also hastily deleted all his tweets...makes him look so innocent…
Btw, where in Gunn's Nambla "joke" is the build-up or the punch line to even formally qualify as a joke; looks like an ad absurdum interpretation on your side.
3. As for him having a daughter or not: this is a deflection, do you think it makes a difference in this context? Nobody here implied that he actually raped a child (yet). This is about people like Gunn promoting the cause of child rape in a positive, jokey way like with racist, misogynist or antisemitic comments (all of which he made too to a minor extent).
Whether Gunn possesses child porn (like his buddies) and whether he was involved in child rape, must be investigated by authorities...maybe we have a pedo-Weinsteineque beginning here.
reply
share
zephyr_cape (2979)
6 years ago
"As for Nambla being the "clear butt of "jokes". Lol, that is in your head."
The whole source of this line of humor is via the absurdity/insanity of child rapists, thus making the pedophile the butt of the joke by facetiously embodying/engaging them.
"where is this Nambla "joke" is the built up or the punch line to even formally qualify as a joke"
Humor don't have to follow a specific format of build up, or have a punch line. The intended humor is in the irony and absurdity of such an open admission. It seems very obvious to me.
"As for him having a daughter or not: this is a deflection, do you think it makes a difference in this context?"
Yes, it makes a huge difference to me. If he actually had a daughter and was joking like that about her I would say that crosses a line. In context it's intended as "wah-wah" humor via absurdity and irreverence. Yes it's humor that some people will find hurtful, but perhaps the majority of comedy is hurtful or could be perceived as insensitive to someone from a certain perspective.
In any case, again, I'm not interested in defending any particular joke he's made here, but to see if I can't lay something down to get people to examine their arbitrary certainties on situations they're far removed from, and try to maybe open minds beyond general incorrect assumptions on the nature of creativity and creative people.
"Whether Gunn possesses child porn (like his buddies) and whether he was involved in child rape, must be investigated by authorities...maybe we have a pedo-Weinsteineque beginning here."
We most certainly do not have that. I'm not going to change the conspiratorial train of CSI LARPing imagination you're on, but I can tell you with certainty we do not have that.
reply
share