Originally Posted by
Raefe Mahadeo
You asked for an example where that could be acceptable, I obliged. I explained the context of different forms of abuse and assault and why people have different reactions to it, based on severity and target. You completely sidestepped the victim blaming point as you seem more concerned with partisan bickering than showing compassion, unless it's for someone who advocated for someones termination if their words are considered abhorrent. That was Gunns position, not mine. If he had principles and empathy when it was happening to others besides himself, I would be asking for more consideration on Disneys part, despite this looking really bad. He didn't, so he doesn't have entitlement to that support he recently rejected in his condescending lecture of a tweet.
But your trying to muddy the waters despite a number of Gunns own actions being his own undoing. But the timing, the remarks he admitted were wrong, his repeated molester cosplay and joking about molesting children with a pedophile, that's creating unreasonable concerns about someone who has and may very well in the future work with children in an industry that was recently revealed to have a number of wealthy sexual predators in it's ranks. Being concerned and understanding Disneys wanting to not associate with this person in the future, that's just crazy apparently. Completely baseless in terms of concern for financial loss and actual wrongdoing.
Maybe the takeaway should be Gunn is okay with people being fired for social media posts publicly (spare me the timeline technicality, this isn't the O.J. case) and he's reaping what he sows, despite reportedly privately fighting it tooth and nail (when it's personally effecting him, of course. Others can suffer a job loss for bad tweets, but not James Gunn, he's special, but privately himself to try to avoid looking like a massive hypocrite and publicly with his good friend Bautista on his behalf, as Bautista is a harder replacement).
Paragon of virtue, certainly.
And for the person that implied I'm rightwing, I'm not. I've laid out my reasoning pretty coherently for why Gunns firing is justified, agree or not. This attempt at a Gunn comparison by misconstruing my very clear points regarding context for different situations, both moral implications and financial, doesn't make you look clever. Just like childish hacks that can't concede my point that repeatedly pretending to be one of the worst things in the world could have understandably negative consequences