Disney Stands Firm on James Gunn Firing, Despite Cast and Marvel Studios Demanding He Be Re-Hired;
His Pedophilia-Themed Halloween Party Pictures Might Have Something to Do With That

What's the Corposervatives' position on this now? Every time we criticize a corporation for free-speech firings, they tell us that is a shameful degradation of poor defenseless billion or trillion dollar corporation's speech rights; yet they feel perfectly justified themselves in criticizing corporations when they shit-can a liberal or one of their Corporate Conservative buddies.

So, Disney fired Gunn for pedophilia jokes. A lot of pedophilia jokes. The Corporatists praised Disney/ABC for defending their oh-so-important corporate image by firing Roseanne Barr.

But when Disney fired a leftwing Trump opponent -- who, by the way, himself celebrated Disney/ABC's firing of Roseanne Barr for objectionable tweets -- the defenders of poor defenseless corporations' free speech rights started singing a different show tune entirely.

No longer was it just a Private Business' Unchallengeable Right to fire any employee who scuffed up their image.

Now -- and only now -- there were Important Citizen Free Speech Concerns to consider as well, now suddenly an actual human being's right to free speech had to be balanced with corporate speech rights.

For some reason, individual speech rights were not a factor worth mentioning at all in the Barr firing. Nor the firing of any other right-leaning person. (Except in cases where NeverTrumpers are threatened, of course.)

Suddenly it was not only permissible to question a Holy Corporation's free-speech-by-firing rights, but morally necessary.

Well, anyway, despite Dave Bautista and other Guardians of the Galaxy cast members threatening to maybe quit if Gunn weren't hired back, Disney has announced it is standing firm in its original Private Business Decision.

I'm not sure why Disney stuck to its guns on this -- I thought for sure they would fold.

I think this firing was originally a fake one, fake like Christopher Steele's firing seems to have been. A temporary firing with lots of opportunity to sneak back in through the back door.

I figured Disney was actually in on the seemingly organic "Rehire Gunn" agitation.

Maybe they were.

But then this happened: someone unearthed these pictures of James Gunn posing as a pedophile priest for a Halloween party, along with women dressed as underaged girls.

There are two pictures in the tweet below; you have to click on the picture to see the second one.

Now, I actually still think he's joking here, just as he was joking with his written pedophilia remarks.

I think he has a dark sense of humor,* and made these jokes back when people actually thought the Internet Was a Free Speech Zone where you could make dark jokes and no one would take it very seriously.

Before the Social Justice Warriors began scalp-hunting everyone on the right, and the Corporate Cons began inventing excuses why it was just and good that their very good friends, the large corporations, should fire right-leaning people just because Social Justice Warriors told them to.

But Disney bills itself above all else as a family-friendly company whose bread and butter is wholesome entertainment... for children.

Do the Corporate Cons who demanded Swift and Ruthless Internet Justice for Roseanne Barr's single tweet not see that perhaps Disney has a corporate image interest in not employing a guy whose go-to joke is raping children?

Where did this endless defending of a corporation's unquestionable right to fire anyone for violating the corporate code of conduct go when a leftist was mob-hunted? Why do they only seem to take a citizen's side in a SJW mob-hunt when it's a leftist or one of their own NeverTrump allies?

Is there some #MuhPrinciples reason why they only argue in favor of leftists and/or their NeverTrump Never-Ending Circle Jerk buddies in these disputes, and always aid the Social Justice Warriors in scalp-hunting people on the right?

Is that #MuhPrinciples, or is that vindictive, embittered fringe, feeling angry about losing their Right to Rule the Right, selecting who and who does not have free speech rights worth fighting for based on whether or not they oppose Trump with sufficient zeal?

Are any of the Corporate Cons' previously arguing for Gunn to be rehired acknowledging these pictures and reevaluating their stance, or like just playing some cyberflirting game about Mayonnaise or Hot Dogs to pretend it away?

* Well, even though I think that.. I was going to say "No pedophile would actually keep running up the Pedophilia Flag so brazenly," but that's not quite true. Jimmy Saville repeatedly grabbed a girl's ass while on TV. And that wasn't the only time he did that, either.

So yeah, some people are this brazen.

But I just don't get that sense here. I think he just thinks -- or thought -- pedophilia was a funny subject precisely because it is so dark and taboo a subject.

Mike Stoklasa has made a bunch of pedophilia jokes in his "Mr. Plinkett" persona; I certainly never thought he was a pedophile. I thought those jokes were pretty funny, to be honest.

Still, where I come down on this is where I always come down on this:

I will not be subject to one of your rules and yet permit you to be free of your own rule. If it's your rule, you shall suffer under it just the same as me.

And I'll sacrifice anyone to make sure that they do not put me in their designated under-caste.

I have nothing against James Gunn's free speech rights -- but I am quite for maintaining my own.

One Rule. One, you wannabe-aristocrat tyrants.

posted by Ace of Spades at 04:06 PM

| Access Comments