[Igottago]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Some fantasy island reactions in here. A few points:

- No, Disney did not "take her microphone," they simply pulled their branding off of it. They did not silence her, this has nothing to do with freedom of speech, they simply do not want to be associated with her.

- No, Disney should not "just be honest." Yes, we all know Disney fired her solely because she's making them look bad. No, that would not be the intelligent thing to say from a PR/brand/financial perspective. Disney is not stupid.

- No, Disney doesn't not have to go through some idiotic "purity test" for 77000 employees or whatever. Rick in accounting can hold whatever views he wants and share them, and so long as no connection back to Disney can be made, nobody at Disney cares. Disney does not care about Carano's views, Disney cares about being associated with them, get that clear.

- "How can an organization function like this? How can society?" Well, if you look at what Disney is actually doing through a very common sense lens, I can tell you with certainty that almost every organization functions like this. This is not new, or surprising, or interesting. This is why PR exists. This is why marketing exists. Make companies and products look very good, and when they look bad, make it less bad. Because good = more money, and bad = less money. And if you as a representative of your business make them look bad, they will probably fire you. How in the world is this new to people?? There are few truly altruistic people in big, high profitable businesses, because being truly altruistic is not profitable. There are many more who claim to be at times when it IS profitable, and only to the extent in which it is profitable.

Do I wish this was the case? No, but it's reality. People seem determined to make this sound like a lot more than what it is, which is a business cutting ties with someone so they are not associated with something that may negatively impact them financially.

The relative ease with which someone makes a company look bad, more so due to a hypersensitive/offended "public" (usually keyboard warriors) in the internet age is the core problem, not the fact that people get fired for making a company look bad. I have no issues with people being fired for glaring mistakes or issues, or even idiocy. Or heck, I don't even care if the company simply doesn't want to work with someone. The problem is the benchmark for the types of transgressions that warrant a cutting of ties in this era, has lowered to laughable levels.