He didn't force the pics on anybody. Twitter and blogs is how you share stuff in the 21st century. Any non-consenting adult can simply not click the link.
Imagine a woman acting out her rape fantasy with another consenting adult. Being exhibitionists, they post their 'rape fest' pics on their 18+ website.
Should she be socially ostracised for making fun of rape victims? For turning rape into a game? Or is she merely engaging in her entirely private adult entertainment? And this being a free country, it being none of my business?
I guess I don't know what you are arguing. If they don't bother you, they don't bother you. You said a public tweet about rape
is offensive, but a public blog post with pictures reenacting rape isn't?
Personally, I see it the opposite - one is planned and thought out, whereas the other can be an off-the-cuff thing (though the fact that there were so many is also very concerning). Which is why, all that said...I kind of feel like which one we
personally find
most offensive to really be beside the point - it isn't about "socially ostracizing" someone, but should they work for the WDC?
One way or another, these things add up to why the Disney company (I'm starting to realize rightly) doesn't want him to be representing their brand. Now, they screwed up eight ways from Sunday in how it was handled and (arguably, given there was a
new matter in June that changed some of the context of his earlier blog posts) when they did it, but if I am Disney - I can't see how after this stuff is public knowledge, you want to be in business with the guy.
That doesn't mean I wouldn't watch a movie he made in the future, I think this stuff is sick but I also believe in judging art as art - but when art and commerce mix as they do at a corporate level at Disney, again - I see why
they don't want this stuff haunting them. The cat is out of the bag, and if this stuff had broken during, say, the GotG3 premiere, and it was, as I gave an example elsewhere, the Mary Sue that uncovered these photos? This would be viewed a lot differently.
It is just a mess that is easily dealt with - because Gunn really isn't that much of a name to begin with outside of fandom. The greater public who pays to see these films doesn't know or care who directed them.