I don't think he's replaceable. It's like house of cards without Kevin Spacey. Actually even worse, one of the best episodes was an episode completely voiced by Justin, of an entire society, and he managed to play so many different personalities of the same character. Never seen this level of voice acting.
It was pretty obvious that he's got issues. Had a scene where a writer literally confesses that he has bad tendencies and channels it all into his work (the gazorpazorp episode).
It's kind of sad that society and cancel culture don't allow bad people to do good things. If those were workplace allegations you really can't let someone like that work, but that's not the case.
I'm all in favor of him both losing most of his money to compensate his victims and continuing to work on Rick and Morty. But society can't handle nuance, and the mob judges people instead of actions. Literally nothing good happened as a result of this cancellation. Just blind mob justice.
People aren't black and white, bad people can do some good things and everyone sins. He deserves a punishment fitting his crime, and the purpose of the punishment isn't vengeance. If an action is good there's nothing morally wrong with letting a bad person do it.
He hasn't been writing for the show these past few seasons, so his only contribution is his voice. Voices are usually replaceable.
> I'm all in favor of him both losing most of his money to compensate his victims and continuing to work on Rick and Morty. But society can't handle nuance, and the mob judges people instead of actions. Literally nothing good happened as a result of this cancellation. Just blind mob justice.
The show is still being made. Society hasn't lost anything.
Honestly I will probably use the term Ship of Thaddeus moving forward. It embodies the concept in a way I find deeply funny. I don't know if the author intended to write it that way or not (the uncertainty of which only serving to make it funnier) but I thank them for their contribution to my pool of available humor
This isn't a punishment per se and I don't think it's particularly useful to try to roll it into more general complaints about cancel culture.
People are complex yes, and everyone's life is composed of both good actions and bad ones, sure. But there are connections and pattern that emerge, specifically and for example domestic abuse is closely related to other forms of violence and abuse. This position is one of relative power, and removing him from it is likely to make people working around that position safer.
And we don't like to admit it but role models are a thing! What message does this send? "You too, young abuser, can also run a highly acclaimed and culturally significant show regardless of your transgressions!" We have a ton of that, that sort of thing is more or less the norm in entertainment, business, and politics. To the extent cancel culture even exists it is a backlash to exactly that dynamic!
It's not like he's permanently blacklisted either come on. We see this over and over again in entertainment. He'll quietly disappear for a year or two then launch a new thing and get free press coverage of his "comeback" with virtually zero long-term consequences. Sorry about your show but Roiland will be fine.
It's likely to make people around his position lose their job. If there were safety issues at work, like I said, I'm 100% in favor of kicking people out for the first transgression in work. If there wasn't, your argument is pointless. You're just ignoring reality for the convenience of your vengeful rightousness.
Stop acting like you get some sick virtue points by enacting vengeance on bad people. Two wrongs don't make it right.
How about a message that even sinful people can still do good? Or that they should channel their flaws to something good?
As if I care for roiland being fine. Your message is that it's fine because the only ones being hurt are everyone around him.
And this has everything to do with cancel culture. It's happening to Harry Potter over nothing right now. It's all over the place. People cancelling the constitution because "slave owners", owning slaves is definitely worse than domestic abuse.
It's all nonsense. Either an action is good or bad. Bad action on bad people doesn't make it good. It makes you bad as well. Everyone sins. You don't judge an action by whether it's helping a sinner because then no action will be good. You judge it only by itself.
This is a new form of religious atheism where the mob is responsible for justice instead of God. And in my opinion, society is better when justice is served by an intelligent entity rather than blind mob.
You need to chill and stop extrapolating my values and worldview from a few sentences online. I'm a practicing christian so the concept of forgiveness is one of CENTRAL importance in my life and a daily practical and philosophical concern.
We all sin but not all sins are crimes do you get what I'm saying? Our reaction to the spiritual state of sinfulness is, needs to be, different from our reaction to the social transgression caused by it.
Forgiveness requires repentance, contrition, consequences. Forgiveness is not just letting something pass as if it didn't happen, though certainly sometimes it can be. Forgiveness also requires an active forgivER, which is not me in this case.
Roiland didn't do anything to me I have nothing to forgive. I am not god and cannot forgive him for his sins. This should be between him and the people he did harm, which is his specific victim here, but also the people around him depending on his stability and integrity in his professional role. Blowing up the employments of all those people with this transgression is part of its harm and something he needs to seek forgiveness for. But not from us.
Then let him get what he deserves, as fits the crime. I'm not even talking about forgiveness. Justice isn't stopping bad people from doing good, it's stopping them from doing bad. Again I'm all in favor of him getting justice. Pay his victims. Go to jail or whatever it is that's the punishment for this. But this cancel culture isn't justice.
And of course he's not supposed to seek forgiveness from us, that's my point. He needs to be judged by a judge. Not me, neither adult swim. Definitely not this mob justice.
One of the major points of religions is to prevent mob justice. To be judged fairly in an intelligent process, with a fitting punishment.
How is firing him from his job a fitting punishment? There's no law for that because there shouldn't be. The justice system has as a principle the concept of minimizing the consequences of uninvolved parties.
There wouldn't be so much hunger for vengeance if people believed others will get what they deserve.
Ok, this is a very good take even though I disagree.
The main issue is you can't have someone whose supposedly a sex offender, working with others and just ignore that he's a sex offender. Also, Rick and Morty is ultimately a piece of entertainment, and it's hard to be entertained if the guy writing jokes is allegedly gross and aggressive.
And the allegations are still just allegations, but from what I'm hearing they seem likely to be proven. If the charges are dropped I would argue Roiland should go back on the show and everyone should apologize. But even without the full picture he needs to at least temporarily step back because the toxic culture is still there; most people simply can't work with someone who they suspect what Roiland is accused of, and the trial is going to conclude and we will get a better picture eventually (and at least for the latter probably very soon).
In fact it looks like Rick and Morty is continuing and people are still fine with the earlier episodes fine even though much of the show is Roiland. That is applying nuance. And I agree that it won't be the same, but it's not going to be the same anyways.
sex offender?! Did I miss something? It says he's accused of domestic abuse, not sexual attacks. I've also saw messages suggesting he's very tactless and creepy, but I've seen nothing suggesting he's a threat to anyone around him.
Rick & Morty started out as a Back to the Future parody where the joke was that Morty had to repeatedly lick Doc's balls. It's so bizarre it's kind of funny, for about a minute anyway (not an entire episode). The other shorts aren't really all that funny, IMO. You can watch it here if you want, but you will proabbly regret the time you spend on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngN7eJUQyXk
It seems to me that Roiland always needed other people to actually make his weird shit funny. Is he replaceable? Who knows; I'm not in the writer's room. Star Trek TNG got significantly better after Roddenberry left, and I think it's fair to say that a significant part of the brilliance of the original series mostly came from other people, and not Roddenberry himself.
Who knows what will happen. I don't think it's a foregone conclusion either way.
(No comment on whether it's fair that he's let go, as I don't really know all the details)
The key to the success of Rick and Morty is that it's a very subversive show, sometimes to the point of being disturbing. Its embrace of comedic nihilism undermines classic sitcom tropes in much the way The Simpsons did when it was new. I always got the impression that this stemmed in no small part from Justin Roiland. It's not exactly a surprise that someone with so little regard for social convention turned out to have untenable personal attributes, but I wonder if Rick and Morty will continue to have "bite" without him.
That said, if it also results in the exorcism of Rick and Morty's more toxic subtexts ("it's fine to be an asshole if you're smart" and "most people are dull and provincial and their concerns deserve ridicule"), it's probably a net win. We shall see.
I would say it's more a deconstruction of fiction, generally, rather than subversion of sitcoms. Most plots are decidedly non-sitcommy.
I would also say Dan Harmon's previous work on Community is so filled to the brim with meta-analyses, parodies, homages, and self reflection that it's probably more him than Justin on the writing side.
I'd ALSO say that I don't think Rick and Morty suggests Rick's behaviors or beliefs are praiseworthy. The dude is super depressed and toxic. Including of course the episode in which his toxicity become manifest.
Super depressed and toxic and always right. He's shown as being that way because he understands the world better. The show might not praise him directly, but until the most recent seasons (where they appear to be trying to undo some damage) it consistently showed that he is a more effective person because of it.
Another example of the subversion that reinforces this "truth = negativity" moral:
(Spoilers)
The episode where they're trapped in the house with shapeshifting memory-modifying aliens pretending to be loved family members. Traditionally you would expect such a problem to be resolved through the power of love, or some other positive quality that bonds the family in a way the aliens can't fake. Rick and Morty inverts it and the problem is solved through the power of resentment. The message is clear - reality is ugly and messy and painful, and "love" is a powerful illusion created to fill a biological purpose, and you should be suspicious of it if you want to act rationally, which you should. Admittedly, the Mr Poopybutthole denouement partially redeems the episode by subverting its own point and cautioning against taking it too far, but the same message crops up too often in Rick and Morty to be ignored.
Being right does generally lead to being depressed and "toxic", because people (one's self and others) aren't happy thinking in terms of cold hard truths. At least that is my experience.
The constructive analysis is the show isn't meant to be an example for fully formed adults to emulate. Rather it's a coping mechanism. Have you ever had to spend weeks of your life dealing with bureaucrats, while they drown you with their sea of forms and policies? cf. "They're just robots, Morty!". That does not inspire me to go out and start shooting bureaucrats as they do in the show. Rather I just appreciate someone else casually cutting through to the ugly dynamic of the social mire.
The main difference between Rick and real-world intelligence is that Rick just blurts things out while those of us in the real world learn to tone it down and be highly selective about attacking social consensuses. But Rick blurting things out is the only way for the viewer to know them - the show isn't based around his internal monologue.
Additionally there are a lot of kids figuring out their place in the world, and looking for truths they can trust. Being technically correct is one of those truths. That some kids end up emulating the whole character is just stupid youthful experimentation that we all look back on and cringe. The fact they're expressing it on web forums and you're reading it and can't see that it was written by a prepubescent noob has more to do with the vanishing spaces of childhood than anything else.
I disagree. The message is clear that reality is messy. But not that love is an illusion. Those two messages aren't hand in hand. In the time stop episode he explicitly sacrifices himself for love and reflects on that. Most Ricks don't seem to love their grandkids but the main Rick does. This has been a plot point since season 1.
I think Rick was frequently wrong even in early material. He was wrong about the planet being ruled by advanced males that lost the need for females. He was wrong about his relationship with Unity and nearly kills himself for it. He was wrong when he destroyed his own universe. Rick lives in a meaningless world because he's vastly surpassed its limitations. But he's not better for it.
Most plot arcs take an existing concept, writing tactic, plot, or trope, and deconstruct its assumptions to then reconstruct the juicy bits. Like the Purge episode. Rick is too powerful to be bothered by the purge. Gets bored. But ends on gleeful gratuitous violence because its kind of fun. Which gets back to what I would say is the central message of the show. Even if the world is dumb/messy/nihilistic/bad; it can still be awesome. Things can be good without a need for them to be intrinsically good.
I think this is one of the more pressing artistic idea of our times. Same for Everything Everywhere All At Once.
>The message is clear that reality is messy. But not that love is an illusion
Rick explicitly states that it is, on several occasions. First, during the love potion episode:
"Listen Morty, I hate to break it to you, but what people calls “love” is just a chemical reaction that compels animals to breed. It hits hard, Morty, then it slowly fades, leaving you stranded in a failing marriage. I did it. Your parents are gonna do it. Break the cycle, Morty. Rise above. Focus on science."
And again at the end of Season 2, during a wedding "toast", he expands on both love being an illusion AND on being smart making him an asshole:
"Listen, I’m not the nicest guy in the Universe because I’m the smartest. And being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets. Now, I haven’t been exactly subtle about how little I trust marriage. I couldn’t make it work, and I could turn a black hole into a sun, so at a certain point, you’ve got to ask yourself what are the odds this is legit and not just some big lie we’re all telling ourselves because we’re afraid to die alone? Because, you know, that’s exactly how we all die … alone." (And before you say "ah but the show isn't endorsing Rick", this message is immediately reinforced by the bride coldly murdering the groom.)
I disagree again! Rick is lying to himself. The first quote is a self destructive drunken rant. The second one is followed by him saying the exact opposite. He loves bird person. He's willing to love tammy.
Even ignoring the canon of future seasons which cements this point further, it had been demonstrated that Rick believes in love, and even clearly juxtaposes himself from the other Ricks who consider their grandsons to be "just" a Morty.
Love can be an illusion of course. And it frequently is. But rick most definitely does not categorically believe all love is illusory.
A significant chunk of iconic comedy characters are horrible people. Basil Fawlty, Blackadder, David Brent, Malcolm Tucker, Homer Simpson, Hyacinth B̶u̶c̶k̶e̶t̶ Bouquet, etc. etc.
Some of these characters have redeemable aspects as well; Homer Simpson is a dedicated family man who clearly very much loves Marge and his kids; there are some scenes that are quite sweet. But he's not being very funny in those scenes, he's being funny when he's selfish, lazy, alcoholic, and generally just a jerk.
Even in comedies where the characters aren't jerks such as Brooklyn 99, many of the characters would still be horrible in actual real life. Can you imagine working with Jake?
Overall, I think it's a mistake to overthink comedic characters too much; sometimes something funny is just funny, and just because character X is horrible doesn't mean the creators are trying to send any sort of message. It's certainly a mistake to emulate these sort of characters or take life lessons from them.
This kind of reminds me of the video game debates. Yes, in video game X you go around shooting people to solve your problems, but in real life you don't. I think everyone understands that.
Rick reminds me of the Elves in Lord of the Rings. Tired, weary of life, sort of past caring; the curse of immortality. Rick has the curse of being nigh-omnipotent.
>I'd ALSO say that I don't think Rick and Morty suggests Rick's behaviors or beliefs are praiseworthy. The dude is super depressed and toxic.
I wouldn't say they're praiseworthy, but - and forgive me for any ignorance here - it's often felt like a strong, vocal portion of the show's/Rick's fanbase comes from this type of person.
shrug. I'm not sure what the name is for the inverse of leopard ate my face but this falls squarely in the bucket of people getting mad and surprised when they find out rage against the machine was opposed to the machine. Lots of people will pay not attention to the art they consume and assume that because they like it, it agrees with their beliefs. It's not a reflection on the art.
yeah i kind of thought the entire point was that dan harmon has a very particular view on what fiction is and how it works. He then deconstructs this in every episode. In season 3 he starts deconstructing what television is. In season 4 he starts deconstructing his own theory of story telling. In season 5 he deconstructs the universe he created. the cleverness of the show comes from it's constant deconstruction of storytelling and each iteration doing it in a different way is what makes it work. And i would say the difference between this show and Community is that nobody seems to tone down this deconstruction in any way.
>It's not exactly a surprise that someone with so little regard for social convention turned out to have untenable personal attributes, but I wonder if Rick and Morty will continue to have "bite" without him.
See I used to go back and forth on this, until I realized something: Will Arnett is absolutely nothing like Bojack Horseman, one of the single most vile characters I've ever had on my tv screen. I think people (not necessarily you!) have this implicit acceptance that "in order to make disturbing/serious/dramatic/[insert intense or dark adjective] art the person has to be broken or embody it in some way." I really don't accept this, nor do I think the character one plays is a reflection on who they are for the vast majority of actors out there.
Sure in hindsight Roiland's brand of humor makes sense given who he is, but frankly plenty of horrific characters have been depicted - or written - by people who are 0% like them.
I'm not sure if this is meant to be sarcastic (I'm not familiar with Million Dollar Extreme), but in any case I want to draw attention to a particular piece of subversion that encapsulates everything good and bad about Rick and Morty.
(Spoilers)
In the very first season, there's an episode where Rick reluctantly helps Morty attract his crush with a "love potion". Now this is obviously messed up, but it's a classic trope that pops up in all sorts of mythology. We've all seen it and we know how it goes - generally it blows up in some sort of monkey's paw way and the offenders get some sort of poetic comeuppance, lending the story a satisfying resolution and a clear moral. Rick and Morty goes out of its way to subvert this - it blows up alright, we saw that coming a mile off, but everyone in the world except the protagonists are gruesomely affected. And they don't resolve the problem, they run away. With no negative consequences for them whatsoever. They get to keep living their lives as before, while their original family and everyone else they knew continues to suffer horrifically offscreen. Sitcom does not reset. Morty is traumatized and Rick just shrugs. The end.
This is a shocking thing to see on TV. It sends all kinds of terrible messages. And perhaps that's the very reason why it was so captivating, why Rick and Morty felt so fresh. It was making a very clear statement that in the RIck and Morty universe, normal dramatic tropes don't apply. Poetic justice can't be relied upon, just like in real life. Anything can happen.
> It was making a very clear statement that in the RIck and Morty universe, normal dramatic tropes don't apply.
How does it not apply when Morty is traumatised by the experience? The show doesn't hide the fact that Rick is traumatised (by all of the experiences they had been to) either, he's just better at hiding it.
I think the moral and message and consequences are stronger in Rick and Morty than your usual sitcom.
Your usual sitcom the heroes are infallible and get at most a slip on the wrist. Here the narrator is saying, this anti hero is so bad he could literally destroy the whole world. He can't undo his mistakes because some mistakes are beyond even his abilities to undo.
We're resetting the situation because that's what sitcoms have to do, but it's the opposite of a happy ending. That's the message I got at least. Similar to the vat of acid episode. That actions have consequences and not all mistakes can be corrected.
It's actually the normal sitcom heroes that get away with everything by virtue of plot armor or plot ingenuity, while Rick and Morty cynically reset it because the show must go on, while hinting strongly that this is the only reason it's allowed and consequences were as real as they could be.
It's out of proportion. They permanently destroy the world, and the only consequence is that Morty feels bad about it. Rick is annoyed, but at a level more consistent with Morty breaking a vase - a valuable, beautiful, but ultimately replaceable object. It's implied that Rick has done this sort of thing many times before.
That's a better lesson than the common Deus ex machina that puts everything right. Them being able to flee and things appearing normal is still half the way to that, of course. The full lesson would be if there were no parallel worlds and they were just stuck there for several episodes, only to die and the show to end. But how it played is still a long way from the usual "our horrible actions had no significant consequences!"
Sounds repulsive, really. And this is supposed to be a comedy? I guess I don't get it for the same reason I don't get the love for "Breaking Bad." I'm a cynic but not a nihilist.
I mean, comedy is heavily reliant on the element of surprise. Being set up to expect a particular story progression and then having that expectation flipped on its head is funny, when executed with an appropriate sense of timing. The more subconscious your expectations, the funnier it is when they are subverted. The challenge, which Rick and Morty rises to unusually well, is continuing to surprise the audience in unusual ways. Any formula will get boring after a while, including "do the opposite of normal tropes".
Speaking of surprise, your wording implies you haven't seen the show, in which case you shouldn't be reading this thread.
He's also been exposed as having sent sexually explicit DMs to minors, which started to come to light after the lawsuit was filed. It was probably that, more than/in addition to the lawsuit, that led to Adult Swim dropping him.
I looked into it because I had the same initial reaction you did. It's pretty terrible stuff, dude's got some issues
We know of zero cases where he actually tried to meet those fans, let alone touch them.
Even in the undesirable case he did, 16 is the age of consent in most of the US, which I'm just saying so everyone calibrate their vitriol accordingly. Some things are inappropriate, but not illegal, and therefore don't deserve automatic banishment from society.
But here, the feeling I get is that he has alcohol problems, drinks, and tweets really dumb, cringe shit to strangers, thinking he's just hilarious (which he's not). That's his Twitter problem.
As for the criminal case against him, the court should decide, not us.
I learned about Flanderization [0] on HN recently and was surprised to read that Rick and Morty is a show that consciously tries to avoid it.
Honestly, I think they’ve done a pretty good job and as a result the show still feels fresh and entertaining in the 6th season. But I imagine that’ll be quite a bit harder without Justin.
Whatever they were doing they had a formula for making some dang good tv. R&M is far better than any other adult cartoon I’ve seen, to the point that I think it might be one of the best TV shows I’ve ever seen.
Here’s to hoping that Justin gets in a better spot, and the next few seasons of R&M don’t pull a Game of Thrones.
Roland was arrested for this in 2020, which should have been obvious to his employers by at least the period of absence from being imprisoned, not including all the other random times off he would have had to take for court dates. Why did they continue working with him for two years after, and why did it also take two years for this to end up in the news?
Frankly they (probably) had no way of knowing if he didn't want them to. He is (was?) a high level creative. If he goes, "hey guys I can't record Thursday I have something personal I need to take care of," that's probably it. Hell the show's release schedule was absurd until season 5 or so, clearly no one really held them to the fire because they were a huge cash cow.
I gave Venture Bros a look a while back, and it scratched my pop-culture references + nihilism itch way better than Rick and Morty ever did. I don't know why though.
Nothing matters in Rick and Morty because they can always hop to another universe (as that universe's Rick and Morty die) and pick up where they left off. Similarly, Venture Bros nothing matters cause everyone can be cloned and fixed even if they die.
But somehow, Venture Bros hits my funny bone way harder.
You're conflating law enforcement with regular life. Regular people and employers don't have the investigative authority of law enforcement. Law enforcement has a higher standard of proof because it comes with higher penalties.
The rest of us who don't have the authority to conduct formal investigations have no choice but to make decisions based on the best knowledge we have and the benefit of our life experience.
The employer did what investigation they could. That's what they've been doing until this point. This information about Roiland didn't just come out today. This is all easily found out. You've reflexively invented the fearmongering scenario that action was taken on allegations alone.
What on earth "best knowledge" could an employer know about domestic disputes? America has a deep deep well of benefits offered to people who claim domestic violence. They can get a TRO and have the children and gun rights taken from the person, they can get assistance from a battered women's shelter, they can get the upper hand in family court, they can get the house/custody because after the TRO the person is kicked out of the house and can be argued as having left the family. If the person is foreign, they get massive massive incentive to claim domestic abuse as that's the magic words they need to invoke VAWA and get that golden residency visa. Not saying any of this is the case here, but a mere charge or allegation of domestic violence is difficult for an employer to investigate in any meaningful way.
And even more dystopian : "The woman was not identified in court documents." Yeah lets fire someone when we can't even find out who made the accusation, and don't know whether they're guilty or not. How do you even investigate the accuser's claims as an employer if you have no idea who they even are. It's dystopian to have court cases where you can't even find out who an adult accuser is.
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. IMO employers should stay the fuck out of domestic disputes until the person is actually found guilty.
Yes it ensures I will never watch the show again because I find their presumptuous morals repulsive. The aggregate effect I suppose will definitely have an effect on the brand. IMO they trashed their brand by sacking people before they were found guilty.
God bless the right to bankrupt yourself to mete out preliminary justice, though.
>IMO they trashed their brand by sacking people before they were found guilty.
To be fair, AS simply said they've ended their relationship with Roiland without saying why. Are you not also doing the same thing to AS here that you're accusing them of doing to Roiland (eg, making a proof-less accusation and terminating your relationship with the show because of it)?
>making a proof-less accusation and terminating your relationship with the show because of it)?
Lol publicly firing someone in what is obviously tied to criminal accusations is the same as not watching a show? That's like saying preferring to date latina women is the same thing as being racist in your hiring process.
Let's say there is a freckled girl in front of me.
I could do all the following
1) See freckles
2) Find it attractive
3) Fire them
4) Convince others freckles are evil and all freckled people need executed
5) Not watch their show because I don't like freckles
Yeah the reasoning the same; I did it because the freckles. Therefore basically I did the same thing.
Brilliant jjulius. And this is all ignoring I'm not even making any criminal presumptions against Rick and Morty or my reputation in connection with associating with someone criminally charged. So really neither my reasoning nor the act is the same.
> What happened to ‘innocent until proven guilty’?
It applies to criminal punishment, and nothing else.
> Are mere allegations enough to lose your job?
That depends (here, where the “job” is almost certainly an explicit contract, not at-will employment) on terms of the contractual relationship, but its very common for contracts to have termination clauses that don't require a criminal conviction. (They may or may not require some payment.)
We don't know what internal conversations looked like at Adult Swim. We don't know if, or of not, they are aware of anything else that may have happened that encouraged them to make this decision. I'm not saying anything did - the point is, we don't know their reasoning, but we should assume that the decision wasn't made lightly.
The accuser is unknown and the accused is a smart guy with counsel. Which means from the employer viewpoint they know some <redacted> person accused him and they get a generic response from the lawyer about not being able to comment about an ongoing case.
The chance the employer has credible knowledge of guilt is extremely slim.
My "We don't know if, or of not, they are aware of anything else," comment clearly suggests that the reasons for terminating him may not be limited to this court case specifically. It's been covered in many articles that this sort of behavior from him has been an open secret for a bit. I don't claim to know whether or not that's true, I'm simply saying that none of us know exactly why AS did this, whether or not it was only about the pending legal case or something more, or anything.
All we can do is assume they didn't make the decision lightly. Adult Swim is clearly a lot closer to this situation than any of us in this thread, and to pretend that any of us may know better than them in regards to this is just wild (and, really, you're doing the same thing you say they are - accusing them of something without proof).
Why are we allowed to assume they didn't make the decision lightly but not able to assume just maybe it is extremely unlikely they have credible evidence of guilt.
You play the "oh I don't know anything game" while simultaneously saying we should assume your viewpoint. Clearly you do think you know something and the know-nothing defense is some kind of Schrodinger's cat scenario where you know something when it's time to make assumptions and don't know when someone else does.
>Why are we allowed to assume they didn't make the decision lightly
Because they're potentially shooting their cash cow and probably the most popular show they've ever had in the head. If you don't believe in their values than at least believe that they are 100% considering the financial implications of doing this.
Im not sure if hes innocent or guilty, so Im waiting to see what happens. That being said, hes pretty well known to have a lot of issues so it would not surprise me if he WAS found guilty. Until the court date, Im just going to wait and see.
Yes. Allegations without even a crime to charge are enough to take your career away and all of your Constitutional rights. If the accusation is bad enough, the Government can use it as justification to conduct a summary execution against you.
There is a difference between community justice and law enforcement justice. It used to be that most people understood your life should not be taken away without a trial. Courts are the best place we have to determine truth and guilt.
Over the past decade or more there has been a change where people stopped caring about due process. It's like a digital form of burning witches at the stake. Because let's be honest, almost anyone can be cancelled without even being arrested and there is a good chance that person doesn't have the resources to survive without employment.
This probably doesn't apply to someone like Justin Roiland who will probably be fine eventually... But they should wait for a conviction before taking his ability to earn money and live freely away.
TLDR; being cancelled is in effect a death penalty for many.
EDIT: In this case, atleast they waited until he was charged. That should be the standard in many cases.
He was charged though. In 2020, so it's not exactly a rash kneejerk decision. It's pretty reasonable to assume the decision makers here have better information than we do, and clearly took their time arriving to this conclusion.
There are definitely unsettling cases more in line with what you're getting rattled about here, but I don't see anything indicating this is one.
Why cant normal people not produce something that is entertaining?
And why can they not quit ostracizing the freak-show, they produce en mass to entertain them.
Why can the social cripples not dance in the limelight and then die out of sight, out of mind?
Well, Dan Harmon got a prolonged vacation to and they needed him back, so here we go. The usual "He is checking" in routine, which is actually just some acting coaching, were the maimed learn to keep it in the closet. A interesting discussion about origin, healthy handling of the problems and solving them permanently, is to much to ask.
It was pretty obvious that he's got issues. Had a scene where a writer literally confesses that he has bad tendencies and channels it all into his work (the gazorpazorp episode).
It's kind of sad that society and cancel culture don't allow bad people to do good things. If those were workplace allegations you really can't let someone like that work, but that's not the case.
I'm all in favor of him both losing most of his money to compensate his victims and continuing to work on Rick and Morty. But society can't handle nuance, and the mob judges people instead of actions. Literally nothing good happened as a result of this cancellation. Just blind mob justice.
People aren't black and white, bad people can do some good things and everyone sins. He deserves a punishment fitting his crime, and the purpose of the punishment isn't vengeance. If an action is good there's nothing morally wrong with letting a bad person do it.