Taking On The Mouse

[Doctor Phibes]

@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.

[Ivorythumper]

@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”.

[Jolly]

@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.

[Copper]

@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.

[Copper]

@Ivorythumper said in Taking On The Mouse:

the worst SCOTUS decisions since Dred Scott.

Good point

Let's not forget racism

[jon-nyc]

@Ivorythumper Lobbying and publicly supporting/opposing a bill is not exceeding any company’s charter. It happens literally every day in every state.

[jon-nyc]

@Jolly said in Taking On The Mouse:

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.

That’s true and entirely acceptable behavior.

The government punishing it for having the wrong position on a bill is obscene.

[Ivorythumper]

@jon-nyc said in Taking On The Mouse:

@Ivorythumper Lobbying and publicly supporting/opposing a bill is not exceeding any company’s charter. It happens literally every day in every state.

Ermm…. Two obvious points:

1. that it happens does not mean it exceeds the charter.

2. a business corporation is organized for the functioning of the business.

That’s the whole point of a business corporation— lobbying for the direct interests of the industry is one thing, lobbying to shape public policy to a political agenda is quite another.

[jon-nyc]

The law makes no such distinction and anyway they would argue that the law makes it harder to recruit employees.

But let’s not even pretend that DeSantis is doing this out of some novel theory of corporate chartership. It’s simply political retribution using the apparatus of the state.

[Copper]

@jon-nyc said in Taking On The Mouse:

That’s true and entirely acceptable behavior.

Call me unacceptable, but I don't think Disney or the teachers should be encouraging kindergarten age boys to experiment with sex with each other.

I understand that democrats consider this to be important training, they are entitled to this opinion.

Disney is of course entitled to encourage kiddies to study deviant sex practices. This encouragement is the very foundation of our civilization.

I just think they could maybe wait a while and maybe focus on teaching the alphabet and multiplication tables. I think some other parents agree with this opinion.

[George K]

Where on the spectrum of political outrage does this lie?

Just curious.

https://nodebb.the-new-coffee-room.club/topic/11763/sorry-ohio

[LuFins Dad]

@jon-nyc said in Taking On The Mouse:

@Jolly said in Taking On The Mouse:

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.

That’s true and entirely acceptable behavior.

The government punishing it for having the wrong position on a bill is obscene.

I think it’s troubling, but not on the same level as you. They aren’t punishing, but are instead removing privileges. Being forced to play on the same playing field as everyone is not a penalty. There is a difference…

Now, as I mentioned earlier, the much more interesting case will be when Steamboat Willie’s trademark comes up before the Republican Congress next year.

[George K]

@LuFins-Dad said in Taking On The Mouse:

They aren’t punishing, but are instead removing privileges. Being forced to play on the same playing field as everyone is not a penalty.

I really haven't followed this too closely, but your comment raises an interesting question: What other businesses have enjoyed the same perks as Disney?

Of course, as @jon-nyc says, one could claim that the revocation of such perks is political, but, otoh, wasn't the original granting of said perks political as well?

Why did Disney get them in the first place? Because they're big? Powerful? Tax-revenue generating?

[Jolly]

@jon-nyc said in Taking On The Mouse:

@Jolly said in Taking On The Mouse:

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.

That’s true and entirely acceptable behavior.

The government punishing it for having the wrong position on a bill is obscene.

Grab the bull by the tail and you get the horns.

This is not a tax bill that concerns Disney or a workplace bill that affects their employees. Disney has decided to not only influence the educational process of the state of Florida, but has also vowed to work against a statute duly enacted by the legislators of Florida and then signed into law by the governor of the state.

By screwing up their tax status, Disney may have done irreparable harm to the most important people in this issue, the Disney shareholders.

Maybe Disney needs a new CEO, who will concern himself more with the important people and tune out some of the Woke chatter...

[LuFins Dad]

@George-K said in Taking On The Mouse:

@LuFins-Dad said in Taking On The Mouse:

They aren’t punishing, but are instead removing privileges. Being forced to play on the same playing field as everyone is not a penalty.

I really haven't followed this too closely, but your comment raises an interesting question: What other businesses have enjoyed the same perks as Disney?

Of course, as @jon-nyc says, one could claim that the revocation of such perks is political, but, otoh, wasn't the original granting of said perks political as well?

Why did Disney get them in the first place? Because they're big? Powerful? Tax-revenue generating?

Yes, it’s political, but are we going to argue that it’s unfair to force a company to work on the same playing field as everybody else? From what I can figure, the practical effect of this really comes down to permitting and bureaucracy. While DisneyWorld was “Self-governing” they still had to stay within the laws of land… Chepek couldn’t start murdering Hobos… The rides and the buildings still had to pass safety standards and the like. But… When Disney decides to take down a ride and put another up, then they didn’t have to go through the months of proceedings to get the permission to take down the ride then the months of proceedings to get the necessary permits to put up the new ride… This is an unfair competitive advantage over the other Orlando Resorts and parks.

[Jolly]

I was at Disneyworld the first year it opened. Lot of orange groves and rural land out in that part of the world before the Mouse moved in. The state of Florida cut those deals with Disney for economic development, and it worked. Disney became Florida's largest employer. And since that area has become a destination, other jobs have followed.

But nobody else operates under the favorable governing deal that Disney has, er, had. Not as far as I know.

[Doctor Phibes]

@George-K said in Taking On The Mouse:

Why did Disney get them in the first place?

Maybe it was a reward for conspiring with the FBI to blacklist a bunch of his own employees.

Those were the good old days when big corporations behaved in a morally upstanding manner we can all get behind, and the FBI were genuinely people we could trust!

[Copper]

I think the Reedy Creek deal has been public knowledge since the beginning.

I think Disney probably more than earned any tax breaks they got.

I have been visiting Disney World regularly for over 40 years. I don't think anyone would disagree that Disney has greatly raised the value of everything within 50 miles of Orlando. The airlines, hotels, schools and every other business in Central Florida has grown because of Disney.

But now Orlando is so big that Disney is no longer the only engine of growth. It's probably time to reassess.

[jon-nyc]

@LuFins-Dad

Yes it’s taking away a privilege but it’s being done as a punishment obviously. As a parent you are surely familiar with taking away a privilege as punishment.

None of the principled reasons to remove the privilege occurred to these guys before the Ed bill. In fact these very same clowns just wrote a new and rather substantial Disney privilege into law a just a few months ago. (Tech reg bill applies to all social media companies ‘unless owned by a company that operates a large amusement park in the state’).

[Jolly]

@Doctor-Phibes said in Taking On The Mouse:

@George-K said in Taking On The Mouse:

Why did Disney get them in the first place?

Maybe it was a reward for conspiring with the FBI to blacklist a bunch of his own employees.

Those were the good old days when big corporations behaved in a morally upstanding manner we can all get behind, and the FBI were genuinely people we could trust!

At that point in history, the Red Menace was not as menacing as portrayed, but it was real. They called it the Cold War for a reason...