5 ms·

> they already are going after Disney They aren't going after Disney because of adult infantilization, but the opposite - introducing kids to adult concepts in

> they already are going after Disney They aren't going after Disney because of adult infantilization, but the opposite - introducing kids to adult concepts in a particularly politically motivated way that makes them not a good source of kids entertainment in the opinion of many adults. The comic books that Disney Marvel has produced are 98% low quality poorly written poorly drawn trash, and their movies mostly ok until now (except we seem to be getting into the girl-boss post success phase of the MCU and I expect a downturn). The issue with Disney is their attempt to become a source of propaganda for social policies aimed towards people's kids, and their choice to be vocal about wanting to influence laws being passed the government in Florida. Their choice, but they also reap the consequences.

_jal 5y ago
Thanks. That's the culture-warrior's way of saying, "we're cancelling Disney because they protested that we were cancelling gay people."
- gjsman-1000 5y ago
  The Florida bill never even mentions the word "gay". As for what the bill actually says: > Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards. That's not cancelling gay people at large. That's preventing the schools from talking to third-graders or younger (8 years old or younger) about these things and letting their parents do it if they choose. You might disagree with the bill, but Disney is taking a political stance, and does not deserve to have special political privileges if they take any form of political stance, regardless on what the political stance is.
  - mrtranscendence 5y ago
    > but Disney is taking a political stance, and does not deserve to have special political privileges if they take any form of political stance Wait, who said this? Corporations lobby the government all the time. They absolutely have political stances. Sometimes these stances are transparently about making them money, and sometimes they're (ostensibly) not, but it would deny reality to claim that they shouldn't have political stances. Maybe you feel that they shouldn't, but it's tilting at windmills. This is beside the point of whether they should have "special political privileges". Maybe no corporation should have "special political privileges". But in a world where they do, it's strange to confer them conditional on what has never been the case (companies not taking political positions). edit: "The Florida bill never even mentions the word 'gay'." That statement does not make you sound very serious. The bill obviously involves -- at a deep level -- the concept of "gay" whether or not it uses that particular word.
    - gjsman-1000 5y ago
      Preventing schools from talking about "gay" to people who are generally 5-9 years old is a political choice that is very different than excluding gay people from society as claimed.
      - larkost 5y ago
        I disagree. What is really trying to be banned here is things like talking about families that have two dads (or two moms). No-one is talking to kindergartners about sex in schools, homosexual or heterosexual. But they are talking about why one kids'd parents do not line up with another, and how that is ok. As a side note: I have an 8-year-old son. I tried to explain a bit about this sort of thing, but just explaining about how adults are attracted to each other is something he is simply not ready to understand. Trying to explain sex to him at this point would just be confusing. The problem is that some parents do not think that it is ok that someone has two dads, and really want to go back to the days when "those people" would be socially shamed and that shaming was supported by what is taught in school. And the governor of Florida, and his compatriots in that states legislative body agree with them (or are at least willing to play this for political points). I happen to think that we should accept people's choices about who they think are family (there are extremes on this, and I am less certain about my stance the farther you go). And to some degree our laws and the court's interpretation of that have solidified that as the law of the land. Once we are there, pretty much the only thing that schools can reasonably do is to teach these "new" forms of family as normal. Yes that is against what some parents want, but if they want their kids not to be exposed to this then they better be taking care of their kids education themselves (homeschool or paying for private schools).
      - halostatue 5y ago
        You are wrong, full stop. If one cannot talk about why Joe has two mommies and no daddies, or why Jane's mom should now be called dad (necessary consequences of the "don't say gay" bill - and very much intended by the bigots behind the bill and behind those bigots who support the bill), then one is _erasing_ gay people from society. My 62-year-old brother-in-law tells me that knew he was gay (but didn’t have a word for it) from about 6 years old. He still had to go through a bunch of figuring out what that meant, but if society hadn’t been stuck where it was when he was 6, he may have saved himself a lot of pain growing up.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - mfringel 5y ago
    "The law doesn't have this exact word in it and therefore none of the observed effects of the law actually exist." is not the airtight defense you may think it is.
ineedasername 5y ago
>the girl-boss Do you mean female lead characters, or female leadership on the movie project itself? Or something else (or mixture of those trends?) Apart from that, I'm not sure Disney really cares about social policies themselves one way or another. I think it's much more mercenary than that. A large part of their audience really wants to see them (and corporations in general) take a stand on certain issues, and Disney doesn't want to lose them by keeping silent. Unfortunately for Disney, a different part of their audience doesn't want to see them take a stand on issues. Or if they do, that it should be a different stand. Disney is finding out right now that it simply can't satisfy everybody.
- LegitShady 5y ago
  >Do you mean female lead characters, or female leadership on the movie project itself? Female leadership on movie projects isn't an issue. Female lead characters aren't an issue. I think girl-boss is a type of narrative in a film where they write unlikeable women that don't register as real people for the purpose of creating "powerful" female characters that aren't interesting or successful. Examples - Rey/Admiral Holdo/ from Disney Star Wars, Wonder Woman 1984, Captain Marvel, the female terminator reboot, the female ghostbusters reboot, the ocean's 8 female reboot, etc etc etc I fully expect the newest Thor movie with new female thor to be another girl-boss film, and from the trailer same thing with the upcoming Miss Marvel movie. The new Indiana Jones movie is at risk since it seems to be about Indy passing the torch to a young woman and Kathleen Kennedy is involved - we've seen her record on star wars. We'll see if any of that happens. >Apart from that, I'm not sure Disney really cares about social policies themselves one way or another. I think it's much more mercenary than that I disagree. The leadership and many of the creatives in Disney are the people who want to push particular political opinions on to other people. https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1508912865293619202 https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1508912865293619202 >Unfortunately for Disney, a different part of their audience doesn't want to see them take a stand on issues. Or if they do, that it should be a different stand. Disney is finding out right now that it simply can't satisfy everybody. Disney thought there was nothing anyone could do about it - since they're a private company and they can do what they want. They forgot the government they were picking a fight with also had the ability to take back privileges disney had that allowed them to be their own government in their district. They don't need to satisfy everyone, but they want to be political activists with a direct line to your kids eyes and ears in your home. Disney is a platform for their politics.
juve1996 5y ago
> The issue with Disney is their attempt to become a source of propaganda for social policies aimed towards people's kids, and their choice to be vocal about wanting to influence laws being passed the government in Florida. Their choice, but they also reap the consequences. What is wrong with this? Plenty of private corporations lobby the government.
mfringel 5y ago
> in the opinion of many adults. How many?
krapp 5y ago
It's frightening how so many of the same people that have spent the last few years hollering about cancel culture and free speech absolutism and insisting the government regulate social media platforms also support the government punishing a corporation for legal political speech with which they disagree. Frightening, but not at all surprising.
- LegitShady 5y ago
  The corporation that decided it would intervene in laws passed by the government loses special privileges and now must act like every other corporation isn't cancel culture. Once they became intentionally political they entered the political arena. And they're free to talk and also free to catch the consequences of their speech - isn't that what I keep hearing?
- orangecat 5y ago
  As opposed to the people who in the last 15 seconds have suddenly realized that it's great when megacorporations use their power to influence the political process.

_jal 5y ago

Thanks. That's the culture-warrior's way of saying, "we're cancelling Disney because they protested that we were cancelling gay people."

gjsman-1000 5y ago
The Florida bill never even mentions the word "gay". As for what the bill actually says: > Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards. That's not cancelling gay people at large. That's preventing the schools from talking to third-graders or younger (8 years old or younger) about these things and letting their parents do it if they choose. You might disagree with the bill, but Disney is taking a political stance, and does not deserve to have special political privileges if they take any form of political stance, regardless on what the political stance is.
- mrtranscendence 5y ago
  > but Disney is taking a political stance, and does not deserve to have special political privileges if they take any form of political stance Wait, who said this? Corporations lobby the government all the time. They absolutely have political stances. Sometimes these stances are transparently about making them money, and sometimes they're (ostensibly) not, but it would deny reality to claim that they shouldn't have political stances. Maybe you feel that they shouldn't, but it's tilting at windmills. This is beside the point of whether they should have "special political privileges". Maybe no corporation should have "special political privileges". But in a world where they do, it's strange to confer them conditional on what has never been the case (companies not taking political positions). edit: "The Florida bill never even mentions the word 'gay'." That statement does not make you sound very serious. The bill obviously involves -- at a deep level -- the concept of "gay" whether or not it uses that particular word.
  - gjsman-1000 5y ago
    Preventing schools from talking about "gay" to people who are generally 5-9 years old is a political choice that is very different than excluding gay people from society as claimed.
    - larkost 5y ago
      I disagree. What is really trying to be banned here is things like talking about families that have two dads (or two moms). No-one is talking to kindergartners about sex in schools, homosexual or heterosexual. But they are talking about why one kids'd parents do not line up with another, and how that is ok. As a side note: I have an 8-year-old son. I tried to explain a bit about this sort of thing, but just explaining about how adults are attracted to each other is something he is simply not ready to understand. Trying to explain sex to him at this point would just be confusing. The problem is that some parents do not think that it is ok that someone has two dads, and really want to go back to the days when "those people" would be socially shamed and that shaming was supported by what is taught in school. And the governor of Florida, and his compatriots in that states legislative body agree with them (or are at least willing to play this for political points). I happen to think that we should accept people's choices about who they think are family (there are extremes on this, and I am less certain about my stance the farther you go). And to some degree our laws and the court's interpretation of that have solidified that as the law of the land. Once we are there, pretty much the only thing that schools can reasonably do is to teach these "new" forms of family as normal. Yes that is against what some parents want, but if they want their kids not to be exposed to this then they better be taking care of their kids education themselves (homeschool or paying for private schools).
    - halostatue 5y ago
      You are wrong, full stop. If one cannot talk about why Joe has two mommies and no daddies, or why Jane's mom should now be called dad (necessary consequences of the "don't say gay" bill - and very much intended by the bigots behind the bill and behind those bigots who support the bill), then one is _erasing_ gay people from society. My 62-year-old brother-in-law tells me that knew he was gay (but didn’t have a word for it) from about 6 years old. He still had to go through a bunch of figuring out what that meant, but if society hadn’t been stuck where it was when he was 6, he may have saved himself a lot of pain growing up.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- mfringel 5y ago
  "The law doesn't have this exact word in it and therefore none of the observed effects of the law actually exist." is not the airtight defense you may think it is.

ineedasername 5y ago

>the girl-boss Do you mean female lead characters, or female leadership on the movie project itself? Or something else (or mixture of those trends?) Apart from that, I'm not sure Disney really cares about social policies themselves one way or another. I think it's much more mercenary than that. A large part of their audience really wants to see them (and corporations in general) take a stand on certain issues, and Disney doesn't want to lose them by keeping silent. Unfortunately for Disney, a different part of their audience doesn't want to see them take a stand on issues. Or if they do, that it should be a different stand. Disney is finding out right now that it simply can't satisfy everybody.

LegitShady 5y ago
>Do you mean female lead characters, or female leadership on the movie project itself? Female leadership on movie projects isn't an issue. Female lead characters aren't an issue. I think girl-boss is a type of narrative in a film where they write unlikeable women that don't register as real people for the purpose of creating "powerful" female characters that aren't interesting or successful. Examples - Rey/Admiral Holdo/ from Disney Star Wars, Wonder Woman 1984, Captain Marvel, the female terminator reboot, the female ghostbusters reboot, the ocean's 8 female reboot, etc etc etc I fully expect the newest Thor movie with new female thor to be another girl-boss film, and from the trailer same thing with the upcoming Miss Marvel movie. The new Indiana Jones movie is at risk since it seems to be about Indy passing the torch to a young woman and Kathleen Kennedy is involved - we've seen her record on star wars. We'll see if any of that happens. >Apart from that, I'm not sure Disney really cares about social policies themselves one way or another. I think it's much more mercenary than that I disagree. The leadership and many of the creatives in Disney are the people who want to push particular political opinions on to other people. https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1508912865293619202 https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1508912865293619202 >Unfortunately for Disney, a different part of their audience doesn't want to see them take a stand on issues. Or if they do, that it should be a different stand. Disney is finding out right now that it simply can't satisfy everybody. Disney thought there was nothing anyone could do about it - since they're a private company and they can do what they want. They forgot the government they were picking a fight with also had the ability to take back privileges disney had that allowed them to be their own government in their district. They don't need to satisfy everyone, but they want to be political activists with a direct line to your kids eyes and ears in your home. Disney is a platform for their politics.

juve1996 5y ago

> The issue with Disney is their attempt to become a source of propaganda for social policies aimed towards people's kids, and their choice to be vocal about wanting to influence laws being passed the government in Florida. Their choice, but they also reap the consequences. What is wrong with this? Plenty of private corporations lobby the government.

mfringel 5y ago

> in the opinion of many adults. How many?

krapp 5y ago

It's frightening how so many of the same people that have spent the last few years hollering about cancel culture and free speech absolutism and insisting the government regulate social media platforms also support the government punishing a corporation for legal political speech with which they disagree. Frightening, but not at all surprising.

LegitShady 5y ago
The corporation that decided it would intervene in laws passed by the government loses special privileges and now must act like every other corporation isn't cancel culture. Once they became intentionally political they entered the political arena. And they're free to talk and also free to catch the consequences of their speech - isn't that what I keep hearing?
orangecat 5y ago
As opposed to the people who in the last 15 seconds have suddenly realized that it's great when megacorporations use their power to influence the political process.