So you're including the qualifier that teens are exempt. Okay. How about a 30 year old plumber getting fired for a moderately offensive Facebook post he made when he was 20? Do you see the problem here?
I said that "people do a lot of growing up between their teens and their 30s." If I had meant just their teens, I would've simply said "in their teens." Regardless, you're trying to lower the ages so that natural immaturity can be used as an excuse, but natural immaturity is no excuse for Gunn, who was 32-34 at the time of his tweets, so your analogies don't work.
Huh? Are you seriously trying to argue that this is the first Disney has heard of this because Disney didn't properly vet a hiring of a director for a high-profile gig?
I don't know, but it's possible. It might be a little hard to believe, but the alternative seems to be that they found the tweets, hired him, anyways, and never made him delete them as a condition of the hiring. If they did the safe thing by vetting him so thoroughly, why did they then allow the tweets to remain up and potentially become a PR nightmare in the future? That seems a little harder for me to believe.
Yeah James Gunn was really a household name back then.
I'm sure you can tell the difference between the level of fame and scrutiny you get as a provocative indie director/screenwriter and as a director for one of the biggest movie franchises in the world.
He's not exactly a household name now, either, except maybe with MCU fans. I didn't know who he was when this news came out. Regardless, I do see the difference in levels of fame, but you said that he wasn't famous, period, which might give the impression that he was a nobody. He was enough of a somebody to get hired to write and direct for "one of the biggest movie franchises in the world" just a few years later.
