Taking On The Mouse
-
DON’T let them eat cake.
- RFK Jr -
@jon-nyc said in Taking On The Mouse:
Not by the school.
But you can be fine with the Florida bill’s intent and still not be a fan of state governments punishing corporations for opposing them politically.
(I say intent because the bill itself is badly written)
It may be badly written. I haven't gotten down in the weeds to parse it out, but the intent is pretty clear - Early primary grades are no place for sex education, no matter what your (collective your) views on what constitutes normal.
Disney's business model is built on children and inclusivity of most of the major aspects of life which are universally acknowledged to be good. Activism within the company is not a good reason to alienate a large portion of your base. Or politically draw attention to your new ideological stances.
-
DON’T let them eat cake.
- RFK Jr -
@jon-nyc said in Taking On The Mouse:
I agree with all that and still don’t like the idea of governments rewarding and punishing companies based on their degree of political cooperation
Then tell companies to stay out of the political arena, unless it directly impacts their business.
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
DON’T let them eat cake.
- RFK Jr -
-
Look, if y'all want to get your panties in a wad over denying public school districts in the state teaching k-3 children that sexual perversion is just hunky dory or sex education in the most general and innocuous terms is just hunky dory, that's a hill I'll gladly die on. That has no business being in the curriculum of that age child. Mouse House, or no.
If you are in favor of that, well...Says a lot more about you, than it does me.
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
Thats not what we’re arguing about. We’re arguing about states punishing private actors for their political positions.
I get that’s pretty indefensible, so you are pretending we are arguing about the bill. But we’re not. We actually agree with the intent of the bill.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Taking On The Mouse:
I guess we've discovered what it takes for Republicans to stand up to abuses by big business.
It’s far more entertaining to watch the Democrats and the progressive Left lining up to defend raw capitalism and the rights of corporations to do what they want without government interference.
-
@Jolly said in Taking On The Mouse:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Taking On The Mouse:
@Jolly said in Taking On The Mouse:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Taking On The Mouse:
@jon-nyc said in Taking On The Mouse:
There were a bunch of good reasons to end this over the years but neither DeSantis nor the legislature showed the slightest interest.
Indeed DeSantis himself signed into law an even more blatant carve out for Disney in the social media regulation bill.
It’s a shame people can’t zoom out a bit and realize we don’t want politicians to bestow benefits and punishments on corporations based on the degree of their political cooperation.
Unfortunately, it just seems to have just whet their appetites for more such behavior.
If it’s wrong when Democrats do it, surely it’s wrong when Republicans do it too.
What's wrong is a corporation becoming political. Their job is to be apolitical as possible and return a profit to the shareholders by producing whatever widget they produce.
Once a corporation decides to take a political stance, it operates in the world of politics, not business.
You mean like refusing to provide cakes for gay weddings?
Bad analogy.
Is a single proprietorship the same as a corporation?
Even worse than your criticism of Phibe’s bad analogy.
Deciding to not transact with a costumer in a nonessential service is not promoting a political view. It’s not a political matter at all.
-
@Ivorythumper said in Taking On The Mouse:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Taking On The Mouse:
I guess we've discovered what it takes for Republicans to stand up to abuses by big business.
It’s far more entertaining to watch the Democrats and the progressive Left lining up to defend raw capitalism and the rights of corporations to do what they want without government interference.
If there's one thing that unites us all in these difficult times it's an appreciation of the value of double standards
-
@Jolly said in Taking On The Mouse:
Look, if y'all want to get your panties in a wad over denying public school districts in the state teaching k-3 children that sexual perversion is just hunky dory or sex education in the most general and innocuous terms is just hunky dory, that's a hill I'll gladly die on. That has no business being in the curriculum of that age child. Mouse House, or no.
If you are in favor of that, well...Says a lot more about you, than it does me.
That's the same kind of bogus emotional reasoning people on the left use to try and stop racists from having freedom of speech, and calling anybody who defends their right to speak a racist in turn.
Either you agree with freedom, or you don't. You can't just agree with people's freedom to do stuff that you approve of.
Proud supporter of Plan 2525. Everything you think, do and say will be in the pill you took today.
-
@Axtremus said in Taking On The Mouse:
@Jolly said in Taking On The Mouse:
Then tell companies to stay out of the political arena, unless it directly impacts their business.
Keep talking like that and people might think that you want Citizens United v. the FEC overturned.
Most conservatives I know think CUvFC was among the worst SCOTUS decisions since Dred Scott.
-
@Jolly said in Taking On The Mouse:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Taking On The Mouse:
@Jolly said in Taking On The Mouse:
@jon-nyc said in Taking On The Mouse:
Don’t fool yourself into thinking that you’re operating on any principal other than tribalism.
Don't fool yourself into seeing everything through the lens of tribalism.
Pfffft. Had Disney been ginning up support for classroom prayer, we'd be hearing about big bad government sticking it to an honest business.
Are you in favor of sex education for your kindergartner?
That entirely depends on what you mean by "sex education." Showing toddlers what fisting means, no. Suspending a kid in high school because he reported bullies beating him up because he's gay, no, I'm not in favor of that. The details mean everything here.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Taking On The Mouse:
@Jolly said in Taking On The Mouse:
Look, if y'all want to get your panties in a wad over denying public school districts in the state teaching k-3 children that sexual perversion is just hunky dory or sex education in the most general and innocuous terms is just hunky dory, that's a hill I'll gladly die on. That has no business being in the curriculum of that age child. Mouse House, or no.
If you are in favor of that, well...Says a lot more about you, than it does me.
That's the same kind of bogus emotional reasoning people on the left use to try and stop racists from having freedom of speech, and calling anybody who defends their right to speak a racist in turn.
Either you agree with freedom, or you don't. You can't just agree with people's freedom to do stuff that you approve of.
That's inherently wrong. Nobody is denying any individual the right to speak or to have his viewpoint heard. But I retain the right to tell anybody that they are a slobbering idiot to promote the teaching of sex education in public schools to small children.
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
@Jolly said in Taking On The Mouse:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Taking On The Mouse:
@Jolly said in Taking On The Mouse:
Look, if y'all want to get your panties in a wad over denying public school districts in the state teaching k-3 children that sexual perversion is just hunky dory or sex education in the most general and innocuous terms is just hunky dory, that's a hill I'll gladly die on. That has no business being in the curriculum of that age child. Mouse House, or no.
If you are in favor of that, well...Says a lot more about you, than it does me.
That's the same kind of bogus emotional reasoning people on the left use to try and stop racists from having freedom of speech, and calling anybody who defends their right to speak a racist in turn.
Either you agree with freedom, or you don't. You can't just agree with people's freedom to do stuff that you approve of.
That's inherently wrong. Nobody is denying any individual the right to speak or to have his viewpoint heard. But I retain the right to tell anybody that they are a slobbering idiot to promote the teaching of sex education in public schools to small children.
I was making an analogy.
The government is punishing a company because they don't agree with their opinions.
Now, you can argue that this right should never have been given to Disney in the first place, but you shouldn't be defending a government punishing a company because it dares to disagree with the government.
And you wouldn't be doing so if the government was trying to implement a policy you didn't like and/or the company was promoting something you approved of.
Proud supporter of Plan 2525. Everything you think, do and say will be in the pill you took today.
-
@jon-nyc said in Taking On The Mouse:
Thats not what we’re arguing about. We’re arguing about states punishing private actors for their political positions.
I get that’s pretty indefensible, so you are pretending we are arguing about the bill. But we’re not. We actually agree with the intent of the bill.
Which demonstrates the problem of CUvFEC. A corporation is not a moral agent or a real person, who is the primary political actor.
And actively promoting or sponsoring or lobbying for or underwriting clear political agenda is not merely a political “position” but a “political act”.
The State has both right and duty to frame laws toward the common good, and to punish actors who usurp the common weal or harm others. As a matter of prudence and jurisprudence, the State’s interests in public education trump the rights of corporations.
This is obviously a political matter properly (in the US per democratic republican processes) and corporations are organized and enfranchised to operate toward specific economic or common interest ends per their charter. For a State to punish a corporation for exceeding and violating its charter is not the same as “punishing private actors for their political positions”.
-
@jon-nyc said in Taking On The Mouse:
Thats not what we’re arguing about. We’re arguing about states punishing private actors for their political positions.
I get that’s pretty indefensible, so you are pretending we are arguing about the bill. But we’re not. We actually agree with the intent of the bill.
Ron DeSantis didn't go pounding on the front door of Cinderella's Castle, demanding anything from Disney. Disney is the entity that injected itself into the public arena on this issue.
Consider Gay Days at Disneyworld...Disney doesn't make a big public deal about it, but they are well aware it is happening, as they increase their stock of rainbow-themed merch. OTOH, the state of Florida doesn't make a big deal about it, either. After all, it's a private transaction between a company and private citizens. There are people in Florida who don't like it and people who will plan their family vacations x'ing out those days for prospective visits, but nobody is saying that gays should be turned away or not be allowed the same interaction of any other type guests with the park or its amenities.
Disney made a conscious decision to wade off into this political pit of early childhood sex education. If they wish to play politics, fine. Politics ain't beanbag.
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
@Doctor-Phibes said in Taking On The Mouse:
The government is punishing a company because they don't agree with their opinions.
They are punishing them because Disney announced that the company is committed to overturning a law enacted by elected officials.
Disney is attacking the state and it's system of government.
The isn't just a simple disagreement over a simple opinion.
And on top of that Disney has decided to side with people who want to teach kindergarten students about sex, and not plain old normal sex.
