Taking On The Mouse

[Copper]

@Axtremus said in Taking On The Mouse:

No school is doing that on the matter of sexual orientation. You’re just erecting straw man and making shit up.

Schools doing that is exactly what started this controversy.

Teachers on Libs of TikTok bragged about teaching evil to kindergarten students.

This caused some parents to wonder if they want their child to be taught about alternative sex practices in kindergarten.

Many parents decided they did not want this taught to their young children.

Disney decided they would fight to force this teaching on young children.

Teachers (with green hair) were teaching this, no straw man here.

You should pay closer attention when you watch Tucker Carson Tonight.

[jon-nyc]

@Horace said in Taking On The Mouse:

So, a conservative big business was given political favors by the conservative political establishment long ago, and now tribal leftists are positing some moral obligation for the government to perpetuate those favors forever?

Haha Copper how did you get Horace’s login info?

[Horace]

@jon-nyc said in Taking On The Mouse:

@Horace said in Taking On The Mouse:

So, a conservative big business was given political favors by the conservative political establishment long ago, and now tribal leftists are positing some moral obligation for the government to perpetuate those favors forever?

Haha Copper how did you get Horace’s login info?

Lol! Biting wit.

[Jolly]

Heard on the radio this evening, DeSantis may not be through with Disney

1. At his presser Friday, he said no individual Floridian's tax will increase because of Disney losing their tax autonomy.
2. The legislator who wrote the bill that Disney tried to six, stated the next step was to not allow Disney to use out of state incorporation to not pay their fair share of taxes.

This could get interesting...

[jon-nyc]

Driving on public roads is a privilege. Maybe they can take licenses away from every Disney employee who publicly opposed the bill.

[Jolly]

At least if Disney fights the tax issue, it will actually be within their task and purpose as a corporation.

[jon-nyc]

I’m curious what’s the broader principle for you.

Is punishing private entities who opposed a bill favored by the party in power a valid act of government in your mind? So, for example, if it were Elizabeth Warren or Gavin Newsome doing it, you might grumble about the particulars but would at least recognize them as exercising a legitimate prerogative of power?

Or is this simply something you think is ok if your side does it but would be government overreach if the other side does it?

[Jolly]

@jon-nyc said in Taking On The Mouse:

I’m curious what’s the broader principle for you.

Is punishing private entities who opposed a bill favored by the party in power a valid act of government in your mind? So, for example, if it were Elizabeth Warren or Gavin Newsome doing it, you might grumble about the particulars but would at least recognize them as exercising a legitimate prerogative of power?

Or is this simply something you think is ok if your side does it and government overreach if the other side does it?

If Warren opposed it, it's just another day in politics. If a Disney employee opposed it, without being an official spokesman for the company, it's just another day in politics. If the CEO of Disney personally opposed it, it's just another day in politics.

I think it a very slippery slope that should be avoided, when public companies wade into the lawmaking of social issues.

[jon-nyc]

Mask mandates are a social issue.

If the Biden administration punished companies for taking a vocal stance against them that would be legitimate in your mind?

[Jolly]

@jon-nyc said in Taking On The Mouse:

Mask mandates are a social issue.

If the Biden administration punished companies for taking a vocal stance against them that would be legitimate in your mind?

Good question, but mask mandates are also a workplace and productivity issue. That's a corporate issue, especially in healthcare.

[Horace]

Has the language of “punishment” been conceded? Cessation of special privileges of debatable and impermanent social value is not necessarily “punishment” for the purposes of this discussion. It’s not as if Disney’s decision makers are being arrested.

[Copper]

Elections have consequences.

Ask those people that were intimidated by Mr. Obama's IRS.

Some people thought that was over the line. It probably was, but a lot of people thought it was heroic.

[Ivorythumper]

Do you not understand politics or are you being intentionally obtuse because corporate America got gored for coloring outside of the lines?

Coloring outside the lines sounds like acting beyond their corporate charter...

[Ivorythumper]

@jon-nyc said in Taking On The Mouse:

Driving on public roads is a privilege. Maybe they can take licenses away from every Disney employee who publicly opposed the bill.

No, driving on public roads is not a privilege. It is a necessary condition for the commonweal.

[jon-nyc]

@Jolly said in Taking On The Mouse:

@jon-nyc said in Taking On The Mouse:

Mask mandates are a social issue.

If the Biden administration punished companies for taking a vocal stance against them that would be legitimate in your mind?

Good question, but mask mandates are also a workplace and productivity issue. That's a corporate issue, especially in healthcare.

Recruiting is a corporate issue too.

Social issues affect us in the workplace as well as the home.

[jon-nyc]

@Horace said in Taking On The Mouse:

Has the language of “punishment” been conceded?

By DeSantis himself in his fundraising emails.

But it would anyway be obvious to any honest observer. Remember these very same clowns granted Disney yet another big carve-out (with no corresponding state development benefit) literally a single digit number of months ago.

[jon-nyc]

@Ivorythumper said in Taking On The Mouse:

@jon-nyc said in Taking On The Mouse:

Driving on public roads is a privilege. Maybe they can take licenses away from every Disney employee who publicly opposed the bill.

No, driving on public roads is not a privilege. It is a necessary condition for the commonweal.

Maybe you’re making a normative statement not a positive one? But as a point of law you are incorrect.

(It has real world ramifications, for example the legal standard the state must meet to revoke the privilege)

[Ivorythumper]

@jon-nyc said in Taking On The Mouse:

@Ivorythumper said in Taking On The Mouse:

@jon-nyc said in Taking On The Mouse:

Driving on public roads is a privilege. Maybe they can take licenses away from every Disney employee who publicly opposed the bill.

No, driving on public roads is not a privilege. It is a necessary condition for the commonweal.

Maybe you’re making a normative statement not a positive one? But as a point of law you are incorrect.

(It has real world ramifications, for example the legal standard the state must meet to revoke the privilege)

The fact that the State must act with due process to deprive someone of the right to drive on public roads tells us it is not a privilege. One has a natural right to access to all the goods of a society -- this is not privilege.

By your legal compass, walking freely on the sidewalk is also a privilege.

A driver's license is not a privilege, it readily must be given to anyone who demonstrates a basic competency and provides proof of legal and financial responsibility to protect the public and other private parties against financial harm. That the State enacts some regulation for the common good does not make it a privilege any more than a marriage license creates a privilege to marry, as distinct from ordering a natural right toward the common good.

[Horace]

@jon-nyc said in Taking On The Mouse:

@Horace said in Taking On The Mouse:

Has the language of “punishment” been conceded?

By DeSantis himself in his fundraising emails.

So it served him to use that word at that time to that audience. Rile them and their support up, that makes sense.

But it would anyway be obvious to any honest observer.

What's obvious is that words have rhetorical value to serve an agenda. Just as the word now has rhetorical value to you and your framing.

Remember these very same clowns granted Disney yet another big carve-out (with no corresponding state development benefit) literally a single digit number of months ago.

So these "clowns" granted a carve-out with no public benefit, but from your perspective, a reversal of such would be unfair punishment. What if the carve-out wasn't just or for the public good to begin with? At that point, you're hand-wringing about motivations for doing a good thing. I suspect there is room for some hand-wringing about the motivations for granting the carve-out, but that is not the hand-wringing that serves your agenda.

[jon-nyc]

This doesn’t seem very hard, Horace.

If they approached this, say, last year and said “these privileges we granted Disney (and something like 1000 other entities) don’t make sense, let’s revoke them” that would be fine and I’d cheer them on.

When they take them away explicitly to retaliate for their having exercised their first amendment rights, that’s a problem and none of us should think that’s a good precedent no matter how much we love or hate Disney or DeSantis or teaching fisting in kindergarten.