This is awesome.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2821669/

Just one piece of the paper citing other papers on discrimination:

>These include studies that have examined the relationship between discrimination and schizophrenia among ethnic minorities in the Netherlands (Veling et al. 2007), burn-out in U.S. medical students (Dyrbye et al. 2007), daily moods among multi-ethnic U.S. adults (Broudy et al. 2007), cognitive impairment among black and white university students (Salvatore and Shelton 2007), and current rates of psychiatric disorders in a national sample of Asian Americans (Gee et al. 2007b). Discrimination has also been associated with homesickness among college students (Poyrazli and Lopez 2007) and conduct problems among adolescents (Brody et al. 2006).

J Behav Med. 2009 Feb; 32(1): 20.

>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?

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...).

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.

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?

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

Let's follow it to its logical conclusion.

What is the agenda that you're talking about?

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.

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.

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.

>Disney employees didn’t kick up a fuss when the company was partnering with an agency of the Chinese state currently engaged in genocide.

Do you think they should have? If so, I would say you do care about the morality, which is the question posed.

> I find their posturing about a policy issue in democratic Floria nauseatingly hypocritical.

What is hypocritical about it? Not opposing every evil in the world all at once is not hypocrisy.

>And anyway “the right thing” is a matter of debate.

And yet we should still try to do it.

Ok, so the argument from you is that it isn't pragmatic to promote controversial opinions. Maybe, maybe not. As stated, corporate activism can be a winning strategy by winning popular support. There has yet to be any real consequences of the "Don't Say Gay" fight.

Regardless, I disagree on principal that pragmatism is all that matters. Don't you think "doing the right thing" matters a bit too?

Nothing too fancy by the definition, just the inclusion of people from many walks of life. Surely, you support that?

They've been at it for a long time and have been doing great! See my link. Corporate activism is one of the better ways to get things done in this country, funnily enough.

Disney has been accused of "being political" since forever. In the 90s, Richard Dobson's extremist "Focus on the Family" organization was pushing a boycott on them because Ellen came out. I hope they continue to be inclusive. It's the right thing to do.

See if this isn't the same then as it is now: https://afajournal.org/past-issues/1997/october/focus-on-the-family-joins-boycott-of-disney/

Wish nukes weren't a thing. Would love to reciprocate :).