You know what, I took this way too far in my idiot brain but I think it would work…
0 = non-binary
1 = binary
IF 0
IF born female = 00
IF transitioning from female to male = 001
IF born male = 01
IF transitioning from male to female = 010
…
/// repeats infinitely until stop pretending there’s anything else in-between
IF 1
10 = female, 11 = male
/// The End
Holy shit, we solved the problem! Solving the non-binary problem with binary coding lolz
@dt79 You might get a kick out of this
Careful, you are going to blow up the board. Caution using the maths on here.
I really don’t like this move, and it has nothing to do with my support of Disney as a whole, nor does it have to do with me being on the left or right. This is a process issue. Clearly this is happening right now, not because of the specific merits (or lack thereof) of Disney’s self governing status, but because the company was outspoken about the previous legislation that was passed. It’s retaliatory legislation against a company that was exercising free speech rights. That sucks. If they were doing this, say, a year ago, or even a year in the future, fine. But I would want to see this legislation passed as a measure based on the merits of Disney’s self governing status, not because they were outspoken on a separate political issue. I don’t want to see this sort of thing become the norm, politically. ‘Oh you said something we don’t like? Guess we’d better change the laws to make you pay for it!’
It’s meant to silence, or punish, the company for making political statements. I would disagree with that no matter what company or individual was involved, or which side was in power and doing it. I think most people in this thread would agree that the passing of legislation as a retaliatory measure in response to the exercising of free speech is generally a bad thing.
You could also look at it from the perspective of eliminating a special privilege that it’s competitors do not share.
I absolutely support this move. It’s about time conservatives show some spine.
From a political perspective, why shouldn’t these special privileges be removed if Floridians don’t believe it benefits Florida?
This is why you’re one of my favorite lefties =)
In all seriousness, I disagree with the premise that companies should have self-governing zones period, but that is a slightly different topic. I have no problem with Disney losing their self-governing status, but it shouldn’t have been retalitory in nature.
I don’t think this qualifies as a free speech issue though. Disney has a disproportionate influence on the country based on it’s proximity to children, and they were using this to peddle an agenda that was political in nature. What is the purpose of having a government in a capitalist system if NOT to protect the people from overbearing companies?
This goes along with the monopoly comment I made above. They don’t have a true monopoly, but it is very much part of a competitive monopoly (“Cartel”). I’m okay with anti-monopoly govt power plays… if more of these actions happened, twitter wouldn’t look like such a shit show and Amazon wouldn’t be the behemoth it is today.
You can. Which is why I would have been fine with this at literally ANY other time. The timing and reasoning is the issue. You and I both know this is very specifically a retaliatory measure. The reason you’re suggesting has existed for 70 years.
Of course it is retaliatory. That is exactly the point.
Perhaps Disney should reconsider their opposition to broadly supported legislation that protects young kids.
Perhaps Disney should remember that their paying customers are parents of young kids.
Of course it was retaliatory, which is why it is a great use of government power.
Exactly. I actually also disagree with this as a concept.
Well, legally speaking, this speech IS classified as free speech. I don’t necessarily agree with how much we extend free speech rights to corporations, but at the end of the day, this is how the supreme court has ruled, so I go by that.
A whole lot of companies have unreasonable levels of influence on the population when they voice an opinion, but it’s still protected. This just feels like a circumvention of that protection.
But also..
I don’t really see how this move ‘protects’ anyone. Can you elaborate on that? Is anyone now ‘safer’ from Disney’s influence because of this?
Well, we won’t find common ground on this one.
So you wouldn’t want the market to handle the issue then? If parents are truly razzled by Disney’s stance in masses, this seems like the sort of thing a capitalist society could ‘fix’ without new legislation. The consumer doesn’t like what the corporation does, so the consumer stops consuming. Corporation has to change.
My hunch is that Disney’s bottom line was never going to be hurt by the mere political differences they have with Florida legislators. And the Florida legislation was well aware of this, so they had to FORCE some hurt on Disney.
Buts it not JUST Florida legislators. It’s the residents of FL that are supporting the legislators in office. I’ve already stated in prior threads why Disney’s ‘special privilege’ is not fair or properly applicable to why special jurisdictions are created. Its what it is at this point ‘a privilege’ which can be revoked.
Florida residents supports the Parental Rights bill on both Red and Blue sides, but clearly by a majority. You can look this up. We put the politicians in place. Disney’s privilege was granted by an antiquated government and now it can be revoked. This won’t be easy as Reedy Creek runs pretty debt heavy which ‘may’ be passed to residents of Osceola and Orange County. Trust me though, theses municipalities can handle the burden of the actual work.
Not at all. The market can fill that role as well.
This is firmly within the legitimate powers of government. The Walt Disney Company has been a welcome and treasured guest in Florida for decades.
It turns out wanting to trans the kids wears out that welcome really fast. This was a clear, fair and legitimate action by government, voted on by the legislature.
Contrast this to, say, the Biden Vaccine Mandates or the CDC eviction moratorium, where new powers were invented out of thin air.
Democrats should take note on just how much of a losing issue this is, but they won’t.
Indeed. We’re not talking about such a society.
I was going to attempt explaining this, but I don’t think I have enough yarn to spin for that honestly.
Here’s what I will say though:
I’d love for there to be more movies for my daughter to watch where the bad guy isn’t one of the parents. More than that, I’d love for there to be more childrens movies that introduce stress and struggle (age appropriate) for kids. I think Dreamworks does a pretty good job of this.
I don’t want some adult I’ve never met pushing some weird narrative into a movie, and whether by confirmation bias or by truth - I can’t help but shake the feeling this is what Disney has been doing (their execs saying this outright didn’t help either).
I think taking a foundational brick out of the Disney empire’s monopoly might open the door for a more non-woke movie producer to step into, so I support this move. Can’t outright tie this to safety though.
It’s absolutely retaliatory in nature, but the important thing is that it’s not imposing a penalty. It’s removing a privilege. A company that has been given a special privilege my reasonably be expected to avoid controversy. The failure to do so justifies removing the favored status.
I mean, kinda sorta. Florida’s a swing state after all. It’s not like it’s overwhelmingly Republican by population, that’s just how the legislative majority looks right now.
and again, I didn’t disagree with this point. We’re on the same page there. That wasn’t my argument. I think that a special status like what Disney had should be revoked in the event that said special status isn’t benefiting Florida residents. As of 2 months ago, the Florida legislature had NOT decided this was the case, it was only after they took a stance on this bill that all of a sudden they are saying ‘well then your special status isn’t fair anymore’.
Sure, it’s within their power. I didn’t say that I think Disney will be able to find any real appeal route, legally. I just said I don’t like it, and I think it sets a bad precedent.
I like this. I’ll have to take a gander at Disney’s catalogue with this in mind, I’m wondering now how much of their content is this. Right away I can think of quite a few examples.
The wife and I start making bets on which parent the bad guy is going to be everytime a new disney movie comes out because it’s that common. For a long time it was always the dad, but it is seemingly less common in newer movies.
I think it is a great precedent.
Let’s imagine if Disney shifted its emphasis to creating children’s programming that demonized gay people. Let’s imagine it lobbied in favor of reinstating Floridas sodomy laws.
Would you support removing its special privileges in that circumstance? I would. Or would the people be better served by NOT using legitimate government authority to specifically target Disney?
Where was all the outrage by the family values crowd when Disney shows were portraying fathers as weak, stupid, disrespected, irrelevant, undermined, etc? Or portrayed families where there was no father? Billy Ray Cyrus was the only father, a single dad at that, who wasn’t portrayed as a dopey dumbass. Disney hasn’t been about family values for years. It’s been about enticing kids to get them to convince their parents to spend money on Disney products. People will stand in lines for hours in the Florida summer heat to go on some ride at Disney World. That’s how brainwashed they are by marketing.
Some people have been criticizing Disney values for quite a while. It’s just that it’s becoming more obvious, more extreme, and the opposition to it is hardening. I’m not sure why you object to people saying that something is bad just because it has been bad for a while.