Wasn’t he doing enough of this in his own life to already qualify though?
3 Likes
That’s apples to oranges though, unless you believe the removal of Disney’s special privileges was a response to the zoom call that was leaked. I’m working under the assumption that it is based more on their vocal response to the ‘don’t say gay bill’. I could be wrong on this, but that’s how I see it.
If I’m right in why this has happened, then that comparison doesn’t really work because it’s a situation where you’re changing the content Disney produces, and I don’t believe Disney content is related to this.
So that being said, I can still answer the question directly.
Let’s say Disney was indeed lobbying in favor of reinstating Florida sodomy laws. If that was the case, but Disney content was what it is now, I would not support removing its special previleges specifically in response to said lobbying. I think you grant those privileges, not because you agree with them politically, but because you support their content and their theme parks.
Now, let’s say that Disney content didn’t have anything objectionable YET, but we witnessed a zoom call in which execs said they wanted to push an anti-gay agenda in their films. I believe I would take the same stance I have throughout this thread, which has been a ‘wait and see’ approach.
In other words, if you believe in the concept of special exemptions like what Disney has enjoyed for 60 years (and whether or not you agree with this general concept is something for another day), then it shouldn’t be rescinded because of political disagreement, or things said in executive meetings. IF they were to alter film content/ theme park content, or use their land in inappropriate ways that aren’t in line with the terms that were set when they were given these privileges, THAT could be grounds for removal.
I guess we will agree to disagree on this part. It’s kind of like when I gave my oldest a Kindle a few months ago. I recently set a rule, no Kindles at the dinner table. Well he was reading it at the table tonight so I took it away. He didn’t like my new rule. By your standards that was wrong of me to do because after all … I gave it to him already?
Also, I believe Fl is more red as of late than a swing state but my point was that the majority support the parental rights bill especially when it’s properly understood and not labeled as “anti gay”.
1 Like
No, of course not.
Was there ever a rule in place that suggested the State expected Disney to be silent on political issues in order to retain its special status? If so, then absolutely, this would be grounds for removal of their special privileges. I don’t disagree that their status was conditional… I’m just saying, this wasn’t a condition.
In your example, you set a rule, your kid broke the rule, lost the privilege. As far as I’m aware, there was no such rule, or even a general expectation, for Disney to be silent on political issues. If I’m wrong about that, PLEASE correct me, as it would absolutely change my position on this.
2 Likes
I agree that the concept of special districts and the Disney specific situation are different things to consider, but disagree that you shouldn’t rescind special privileges because of political disagreement. Not all political disagreement is the same, after all.
It would be one thing if it was rescinded because, say, a Disney CEO said they don’t like Ron DeSantis or because they were opposed to a new tax. I would agree that retaliation like that would not be wielding government power well. This wasn’t a tax bill or a twitter spat, however. Disney chose to leave it’s lane to take a strong stance about how children in Florida ought to be educated. That strong stance was in direct opposition to Florida’s citizens on a bill that has absolutely nothing to do with the operations of the Walt Disney company.
Disney didn’t just pick a fight with Republicans in Florida. They picked a fight with Florida parents.
TBH I hope that Democrats continue to go pedal-to-the-metal on the importance of early age indoctrination into adult sexual lifestyles, and let all of the corporations clearly identify themselves too. I hope they shout from the rooftops how we need more Lia Thomases and Laurel Hubbards. I hope that the Democrats keep allowing themselves to be led by the most woke, neurotic and vocal in the party.
Get it out in the open where everyone can see the issues as clearly as possible.
BTW good job on being the lone lefty in this thread. It’s not easy to carry on several conversations at once when you’re out-numbered.
2 Likes
So my example wasn’t fair admittedly but I didn’t give the Kindle with stipulations either. It’s a privilege that was revoked. Same would go for any of my employees that publicly spoke out against my company policies. Their privilege to work for me would be revoked. My point is you don’t continue reward those that bite your hand even if you have done so in the past.
Now if Ronnie D was out there trying to revoke Disneys free speech rights we would be on the same page. No good. They can say what they want but may not have their cake and eat it too.
1 Like
What I took from the example with the Kindle is that when you give someone a privilege, there can be implicit conditions for that privilege. The conditions can change over time. To an extent, they might even be arbitrary. The decision to revoke Disney’s special privilege is arguably both arbitrary and without warning. But that is the type of power that legislatures wield when handing out such privileges. Of course, legislatures answer to the people for the use of such power. I don’t think the Florida legislature will be punished for using the power as it did because those people likely to change their votes based on this are probably moving in favor of revoking Disney. That is to say, I don’t think there are lots of people that were voting for Republicans in Florida that are suddenly going to switch because of this use of power. There might be Democrat parents who move the other way, though. That is what the polling shows on this issue.
3 Likes
This is very well-stated.
From a political power perspective, it is a big gamble for DeSantis and the legislature, but I don’t think this one will backfire on them, not when it involves young kids. DeSantis sets his “brand” apart by his willingness to take strong stands on issues that many people feel are important. As Disney just found out, taking strong stands on controversial things that are important to you rarely comes without cost.
That’s often what separates meaningful action against meaningless virtue-signaling. The former has cost, the latter does not.
Because selective outrage means it really isn’t about what they claim it’s about. It isn’t about family values but simply homophobia. People need to raise their own kids the right way instead of expecting some gay mouse with a falsetto voice to do it for them. If people are afraid their kids are being turned gay or whatever, the solution is simple: take their phones away. Social media is the greatest influence on their lives.
1 Like
All outrage is selective, as is every other human expression, like concern, compassion and actually forking over your cash, resources and time. This is because we can’t be aware of all things at all times and show equal levels of concern about all of the things you’d like for us to be concerned about, if we are to express concern here in this thread.
You are gifted with a great ability to read between the lines and really get to the root of the matter. You got me, zecarlo. All of my concerns are rooted in homophobia. At age 42, I’m simply petrified that I might take a cock out of nowhere somehow, someway.
Congratulations, you just ran the second play in the woke playbook.
You’re actually on to something here.
I don’t know much about special exemptions, but your logic is a little flawed here I think because in practice people have not pledged allegiance to special exemptions. It’s not foundational. Agreeing to give a special privilege does not mean agreement on why. If that is correct, agreeing to remove a special privilege shouldn’t require agreement on why either.
Sure, IF somebody’s all about it, 100% and then switches over something minor then that would be an inconsistency.
But if people were already like “hmmm I dunno, whaddyou think Bill blah blah kinda 60% sure let’s go with it” and then they see other stuff and change their mind - that’s normal human behavior.
I’m guessing it’s put up to a renewal vote periodically and I’m also guessing it’ll return
x2 on the good job through the thread as a whole
1 Like
It might be time to cancel that Disney subscription.
1 Like
They have me on the hook for the new Obi Wan series. I actually enjoyed the Mandalorian and Boba Fett.
But yes zecarlo, obviously this thread is full of homophobes who are too homophobic to explain left wing gender theory nonsense to kindergarteners in public schools.
1 Like
Gays terrify me
Not me!
“If this whole beach was completely covered in dicks, and somebody said I had to eat every dick until the beach was clean for liberty, I would say no problemo!” - John Cena in Suicide Squad !
1 Like
Honestly I would like this post more if anyone except Cena said this. I lost every bit of respect for him when he made this video
“and I thought steroids made your balls shrink” - Bill Maher
I hope I represent the side well. I enjoy the good faith arguments we’re having here. I don’t think anyone is misrepresenting their sides or really making bad arguments. I appreciate the responses.
It’s not arbitrary though. We both know that. It wasn’t out of the blue, it was a direct response. I do agree that the legislature has the power to do what you’re saying, and obviously they have the power to do it for any reason they choose, because they just did. I did as much research on the legal standing of this legislation as I could, and I don’t see any way Disney can reasonably challenge it.
agreed.
agree with all of this.
sure. That’s why I used the word if, lol. It was a conditional statement. Meaning, if you DON’T believe in the concept in the first place, it’s a different discussion. I never assumed that everyone should believe in it, I personally don’t.
3 Likes
They have a lot of money though. They can wield massive influence in elections if they choose to. I think their market cap is 200+ billion dollars. They have the power to fund a lot of opposition candidates.
It appears that Disney may save some money by not being a special district as well.
2 Likes
I don’t mean arbitrary in the sense of completely random and without any supporting reason. I just mean arbitrary in the sense that they didn’t follow a set of pre-declared and transparent rules.
Is it schools, or is it Disney? I don’t care what Disney does; it’s a business and I never liked any of their crap. When grown women want to have weddings at Disney because of some childhood princess fantasy, you know there is some weird brainwashing going on and it’s all about money.
As far as schools, there is no reason to talk about sexual orientation of any sort with little kids. How it even comes up as a topic for discussion makes no sense to me. But schools are being pushed to talk about these things by the neo marxists in academia. Most teachers I know are uncomfortable talking about politics and social issues with students. Teachers aren’t taught how to teach by other teachers but by college professors who may never have taught kids. And they push all of the crt and other imaginary ideas on prospective teachers.
Edit. I do watch espn so Disney does get my money.
1 Like