You seem to be surprised that a person in the business of selling his public image can't sell it successfully once that image has been irreparably tarnished. (You are aware that popular actors are celebrities, and what they do off screen matters, right?)

> I'm saying that horrible people can make meaningful, positive contributions, but in the current politically charged environment we seem to be acting before we consider that.

Where's the evidence for that? It's always a business decision. Spacey has been discarded because it is profitable to do so.

What a surprise, pissing off a <population group> that contains <the majority of the population> has a negative impact on your career as a public person. Who would have thunk?

These aren't arguments; they're hypotheses. "Pissing off" huh? Because a few jerkoffs Tweet they're upset doesn't mean most of America cares. That's the problem.

"Profitable to do so" in the eyes of his employees. Do you really think these decisions are made to appease Twitter commenters?

Even successful, loved series end up being canceled.

> Because a few jerkoffs Tweet they're upset doesn't mean most of America cares.

Because a few jerkoffs don't care doesn't mean that a lot of people (enough to affect profit margins and public image of the employer) don't :)