It's amusing to me how you still haven't figured out that these people contradict their own points of view constantly. For example, Disney champions equity, diversity and inclusion. Yet, in China, they shrunk down and hid John Boyega's character on the poster for the Chinese market, because apparently China is racist? They champion human rights yet at the same time filmed Mulan directly adjacent to China's current concentration camps (they even thank the administrative staff at these camps in Mulan's credits). You cannot be in favour of equity and also capitalist. Yet that's what they are (apparently). So yes, I acknowledge that their various points of view contradict one another. But your issue is with them for doing that, not me. I'm merely observing it.

I have no problem with people getting fired for saying stupid stuff as a matter of fact it should happen more often it would stop more people from saying stupid stuff.

Considering how this decision certainly caused Disney to lose more subscribers from D+ than gain, I fail to see how this is purely monetary. Their stock took a hit immediately following the decision to fire her. They also cancelled the Cara Dune action figure which was either the highest or second highest selling figure in 2020. Explain to me how that makes them more money? And if Disney loses money from their stars having bad political takes on Twitter, how come Pedro Pascal is still employed? If you think that the people in charge of Disney aren't willing to lose a few bucks to virtue signal, YOU are the naive one.

The recent Star Wars trilogy, which became increasingly divisive with each new instalment ended up performing worse with each subsequent release at the box office. I have no doubt in my mind that the trilogy would have made more money if not for the political pandering stuffed into it. The examples are numerous. Most of the rabid extreme-left twitter crowd who "cancel" people they disagree with do not actually consume the products associated with said people. This is pretty much the case in all of these scenarios. Look at the Last of Us Part II, which was (likely) not as successful as the first game, despite having a much larger install base of players on PS4 vs PS3, plus the added benefit of being a sequel vs a new IP.

TL;DR - Companies within the entertainment industry have shown time and time again that they are willing to lose money over social justice pandering. If you haven't figured this out by now, you're clearly not paying attention.

Aren't you just the one who just made the hilarious claim that "there are no far leftists in the United States"? Lol, better be careful what you wish for, regarding being canceled for saying something stupid. If that concept was universal, you would have just been booted from these boards for life.

Isn't a simpler explanation that they do whatever they think will make them the most money rather than "they're crazy far-left but they suck at it" when they do things that seem contradictory to your narrative. All that stuff makes perfect sense in my model where they're a company trying to make as much money as possible. Sure they can fuck up and do something that ends up losing them money, but that seems more plausible than your model in which they are circle jerk leftists but also randomly ignore some leftist issues because they simultaneously do everything for that high of being morally superior to others but also they took a black guy off a movie poster in China. 

I don't see how killing off (essentially) a fan favourite character makes disney more money. Cancelling her best-selling action figure as well? Come on now. How about the NBA? The NBA (for obvious reasons) hopped on the BLM bandwagon more than any other sports league in North America and their ratings have been in free fall ever since. This is despite the world being in the midst of a global pandemic with many people stuck at home with much more free time than usual. It's quite clear the the social justice initiative undertaken by the NBA and it's prominent stars (like LeBron James) is pushing many people away from their product. Yet, it continues.

If these entities were purely motivated by money (which I wish they were, tbh), they would keep politics out of their products all together. Politics, by their very nature, are divisive. And we're living in an era in which the divide between the political left and right is arguably the furthest it's ever been (at least in the West). Injecting identity politics into your product will not broaden it's mass market appeal. It's just a fact.

It loses them less money than if they decided to keep Gina on. That's their reasoning. They could be right or wrong, but you'd have to show me that Disney would make more money if they ignored her. The options aren't "lose money or make money" in some of these situations it's "lose money or lose more money".

NBA went all in with BLM because they're nothing without their players and that's what the players wanted to do. What would you propose the league do when their top stars like LeBron want to embrace a political movement? The players wanted to go on full on strike in solidarity with BLM, feel like they would've lost a whole lot more money if noone could watch. So again that is a case of "lose money or lose more money". If you can remake the NBA without any players who care about black issues be my guest, I'll be curious to see if anyone watches. 

Now we're talking about injecting identity politics? I thought we were talking about cancelling.