Well the natural end of your argument is just nonsense. Is Disney now not allowed to fire people who make public statements in support of NAMBLA and touching children? Or do they have to refer to you for their decisions? When are they and when aren't they allowed to decide these things?
I'm the one promoting they have free choice over their own direction. Gunn choose his words, now they have chosen theirs. It's very simple.
He made a public statement in support of NAMBLA?
Do you see how contortionist and dishonest you have to fundamentally be in order to defend this?
I could see how an employer "waiting for evidence of pedophilia" might be excercizing a little too late of a damage control measure for their company image, most businesses do try to spot warning signs of the serious variety, signs of mental instability, violence, you name it. With controversial political expressions the waters get muddier than this, but pedophilia and general sex abuse are regularly taken very seriously in their early stages or signs, valid or not, because the consequences for delaying a response can be hugely damaging to companies whose employees do snap while under contract. I don't know if you'd feel this strongly about early release if this concerned a middle school educator's tweets?
If the teacher made those jokes 10 years ago working as an artist I would definitely be outraged by firing him before investigating more deeply to confirm the tendencies, and so would the Teacher's Union. I'd want it investigated, certainly, given the context of his job, but if his jokes were in the context above, I wouldn't be freaking out about it. John Oliver tells pedo-jokes all the time. Doesn't freak me out.
Otherwise, we're now taking these jokes as suggestive evidence that this director actually engages in pedophilia? That it's an "early stage"?
Because you have just made an argument that lays the groundwork to destroy the creative freedom of comics-- nay,
everyone-- everywhere. Suddenly, any joke entered into the public domain, anywhere, that has physical evidence of its existence (i.e. a cell phone camera video taken in a backwater comedy club) can be construed as potential "evidence" towards a future crime, and if that future crime is politically sensitive to
anyone who would employ that person, and if the nature of that crime is politically sensitive enough, due to potential outrage and social media-driven mob justice, then that person is now too "risky" to hire.
You've simply taken the
Minority Report nightmare, and transposed it from criminal justice to "social" (read: corporate BDS) justice. You're convicting people prior to the crime, and in fact, without an ounce of material evidence.
As for having such a strong adverse opinions about sex abuse activism, I don't think getting mad at those movements wholesale is particularly helpful if falsifying crimes rests on the personal responsibility of the persons committing it -- if you fake a rape charge you're a piece of shit, period.
We don't tell the cops to stop looking at cases when they are reported because we've seen fakes happen, every report gets looked at, and if a fake crime is charged anyway, that rests on the evils of the person responsible, not "every women who tweets about sex abuse" what are we 19 years old
I don't recall anyone arguing against investigating alleged crimes, but the efficiency of investigation and potential prosecution factors into every level of how we pursue justice at a government level. Now we are prosecuting people for crimes that don't exist based on pure testimony.
It's not about improving things. It's about improving things for one group of people at the expense of another. Personally, I support notions of blind justice, not blind injustice.
