Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Educational-Tower t1_ixcwczf wrote

Reply to comment by YouAreInsufferable in Did Someone Save Disney’s Life Last Night? Behind Bob Iger’s Stunning CEO Return by HumanOrAlien

If they want us to take them seriously, they had better show consistency. And in terms of “evils” the two are not remotely comparable. You mentioned about “promoting” issues. Surely it is easy to see that lots of people, customers, vehemently disagree with the political stance of the employees, don’t consider it “the right thing”, in fact quite the opposite, and hence it is unwise for a company to engage in activism that attacks the beliefs of those people - particularly related to parenting and children.

4

YouAreInsufferable t1_ixddkm6 wrote

Do you believe companies should ever engage in corporate activism? What do you think of Mike Lindell?

Many people have held an Intolerant view, but we see that this group of people is dwindling every year. Pandering to bigots is hypocritical and they should try to reduce that as much as possible. It's pragmatic and moral to oppose intolerance.

Furthermore, Disney is a huge donor for both parties and is a big economic contributor for the state. FL wants Disney to be happy.

0

Educational-Tower t1_ixdiod8 wrote

https://thefederalist.com/2022/11/22/disney-needs-to-get-rid-of-more-than-its-ceo/

This kind of activism is extremely controversial and smearing everyone who disagrees as a bigot is ridiculously immature. For a major corporation that makes most of its money from families, it is verging on the moronic.

0

turkeygobblegobblr t1_ixeaxvq wrote

It isn’t smearing bigots to call them bigots. Trash people are trash.

2

Educational-Tower t1_ixebgj7 wrote

You mean the “trash people” who do not want sexual “agendas” (the gleeful word if one Disney insider) pushed onto prepubescent children? Those “bigots”?

0

turkeygobblegobblr t1_ixeechy wrote

Yes, exactly those bigots/trash people/detriments to our society.

1

Educational-Tower t1_ixef5r0 wrote

OK. Thanks. So to be clear, in your view the heroes here are the people pushing adult sexual themes onto prepubescent children?

0

turkeygobblegobblr t1_ixegnsy wrote

Given no one’s doing that, the heroes are the people pushing diversity and the dregs of society are the people calling that “pushing adult sexual themes into prepubescent children.”

2

YouAreInsufferable t1_ixdkbcy wrote

It is bigotry. Why are you acting like they're opposed to families? Also, stopped reading here:

"If Disney wants to reverse its decline into a child-grooming, genocide-tolerating propaganda machine, it needs to ditch more than Bob Chapek".

Seriously? You believe this shit? That's truly moronic...

Where is the grooming? People seriously don't know what this word means anymore.

Edit: Updated with new knowledge.

1

Educational-Tower t1_ixdv4dz wrote

The systematic mass murder and sterilisation carried out by the CCP against its Muslim population is classifiable as genoicude. To say “where is it?” is a sign of a non-existent moral compass. You are simply not worth speaking to.

0

YouAreInsufferable t1_ixdzuy1 wrote

My ignorance on which genocide the article is referring to =/= that I have no moral compass. That's just a logical fallacy.

Where are they grooming? Seriously, you can't answer a question the whole comment line and it shows that you can't engage in good faith. Then again, you do read the federalist, so honest communication is not something you're familiar with.

1

Educational-Tower t1_ixeb4ux wrote

You smear people as bigots. These people do not want a sexual “agenda” (the words of one gleeful Disney insider) pushed on prepubescent children. So those people are the problem? People who do not want sexual “agendas” consciously pushed on prepubescent children are the problem. Those pushing sexual content onto prepubescent children are doing (your words from above) “the right thing”. That’s not suspicious at all!

0

YouAreInsufferable t1_ixebe1i wrote

Let's follow it to its logical conclusion.

What is the agenda that you're talking about?

2

Educational-Tower t1_ixecajj wrote

Well see the words of Latoya Raveneu. Her words, not mine. This entails deliberately packing Disney content aimed at prepubescent children with a sexual agenda. Adults keen to expose prepubescent children to sexual material are inherently suspicious. Many of them will be predators.

0

YouAreInsufferable t1_ixecvb2 wrote

OK, so my understanding is that Disney executives approved the inclusion of gay characters, is that right? and she was one of the promoters?

1

Educational-Tower t1_ixedmq6 wrote

I answered your question as best I could. Now let me pose one to you. Hopefully you will answer in kind. Let’s follow your own points to their “logical conclusion” this time. Why are you keen to expose prepubescent children to adult sexual themes?

1

YouAreInsufferable t1_ixedwic wrote

Well, you didn't quite finish; I promise to answer you afterwards.

Did I understand correctly in my above statement?

Edit: To speed it up: Is the inclusion of homosexual characters equivalent to a "sexual agenda" or "sexual themes" to you?

2

Educational-Tower t1_ixeewxb wrote

I’m quoting the words of Disney’s own employees who repeatedly described using characters to push sexual themes as part of an “agenda”. I’m clearly not making this up, the intent is clear and the wording their own - I am merely quoting. Over to you.

1

YouAreInsufferable t1_ixefgzc wrote

Yeah, their agenda is to insert gay characters into shows. I'm asking you if you consider that to be equivalent to sexual themes? You have not-in-so-many-words already stated such, but I wanted confirmation.

Do you consider them equivalent?

Or are you considering something entirely different when you say sexual themes? I'm legitimately trying to just understand your base position.

1

Educational-Tower t1_ixeg43p wrote

I’m not the one who used the word “agenda“. I’m quoting it. I’m still waiting for you to answer my question about you.

0

YouAreInsufferable t1_ixehyk9 wrote

I know you are quoting. I literally just addressed that.

I will answer your question:

  1. We accept that the inclusion of homosexual characters is equivalent to "sexual themes" as you're using it.

  2. We determine that heterosexual characters must also, therefore, meet the definition of "sexual themes".

  3. We determine that exposing children to the idea that same sex parents or different sex parents are both encompassing "sexual themes".

  4. We determine that the meaning of "sexual themes" has lost any useful value as you use it.

  5. We find it obvious that people do not want to expose children to anything sexually explicit.

  6. Sexually explicit content includes pornography or other simulated sexual intercourse.

Therefore, I do not think "sexual themes" is a meaningful statement in this context and is used as an emotional appeal to work around reason and logic. I think "sexual themes" is being used to specifically & unfairly target homosexuality, and is therefore bigotry by definition. Please correct if I've made any incorrect assumptions about your definition (which I was trying to get...).

2

Educational-Tower t1_ixekly9 wrote

Who is “We"?

And it is telling that where you draw the line at what prepubescent children might be exposed to is nothing less than outright hardcore pornography. Presumably things below that are fine in your mind. For prepubescent children. Sickening. You can talk about defending gay people all you like. This is still sickening and most gay people would, i am certain, agree.

Very convenient and disingenuous that specifically promoting a self-described agenda (not my phrase!) apparently does not = exposing adult sexual themes to prepubescent children. What? Hardly convincing and deeply concerning. You are convincing no-one.

You mention reason and logic. Why not just accept that adult themes are for adults and ought not to be specifically targeted at prepubescent children? If people are keen to reach prepubescent children with an adult sexual “agenda”, that is manipulative and predatory.

0

YouAreInsufferable t1_ixeoans wrote

>Who is “We"?

We is you and I accepting definitions.

>And it is telling that where you draw the line at what prepubescent children might be exposed to is nothing less than outright hardcore pornography.

Did I draw the line there? I'm afraid you misunderstood.

>Presumably things below that are fine in your mind.

Uh, what? No lol. That is a horrible assumption.

>Very convenient and disingenuous that specifically promoting a self-described agenda (not my phrase!) apparently does not = exposing adult sexual themes to prepubescent children. What? Hardly convincing and deeply concerning. You are convincing no-one.

You really do love emotional appeals. Let's try logic again. Do you agree with how I've characterized your definition of "sexual themes" as you've asked it? Do you find a flaw in the reasoning? If so, where explicitly?

>You mention reason and logic. Why not just accept that adult themes are for adults and ought not to be specifically targeted at prepubescent children?

I consider race equality to be an adult theme, but that doesn't mean I don't think children should be exposed to the idea that all races are equal. Most people would agree that representation is good. The same thing applies here.

>If people are keen to reach prepubescent children with an adult sexual “agenda”, that is manipulative and predatory.

Acceptance of others different than you is a good moral message. Exposure to others different than yourself is a good thing. Do you agree with these things?

Most of your arguments are emotional appeals based on an inciteful use of language. Where's the substance?

1