While I have my own issues with the extortionist little rodent, that is for a later time.
Excerpt from a pertinent article:
As most folks who follow the news know by now, the reason that Republicans are melting down at Disney — and even threatening to take away tax breaks and regulation exemptions from the mammoth corporation — is because of the company's dollar-short condemnation of the "don't say gay" law that Trumpian Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida signed last month. The bill is part of a larger — and also incredibly unpopular — war on free speech and public schools being waged by a GOP that is reacting to President Joe Biden's election by doubling down on their most fascistic impulses.
DeSantis has also tarred Disney as a "woke" corporation "lining their pockets with their relationship [with] the Communist Party of China."
It remains unclear whether the governor's rhetoric is just bluster, especially in light of the fact that Disney has already loaded his campaign coffer with tens of thousands of dollars. Still, DeSantis has repeatedly harped on the apparent dangers of "corporate wokeness," a phenomenon he intends to curtail as part of his "Stop WOKE Act," a Florida bill currently awaiting his rubber-stamp that's designed to "give businesses, employees, children and families tools to fight back against woke indoctrination."
What is this "woke", anyway?
aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)
Does not sound like a bad thing to me... what kinds of people are opposed to,this?
Excerpt from pertinent article:
"But for all the chest-thumping and threats that DeSantis and his fellow Republicans are making at Disney, this meltdown is actually telling a different story: Republicans believe they are losing the culture war.
The GOP is the party that spent decades extolling the alleged virtues of free markets, criminally low tax rates, deregulation, and other policies meant to give corporations near-total power over American life. The only reason they'd turn their backs on that mission, even slightly, is because they know they're losing the public debate over this "don't say gay" bill and are reacting out of clawing desperation."
The Disney hate is but one example of how Republicans, in their efforts to score points in the culture war, are messing with the business interests that have long been their real source of funding and power.
Funny, for Disney, being welcoming to all as its basic creed and considering the fact that those tourists dollars helps keep this state afloat, Republicans should be more polite.
And there is more from the same article:
In response to Citigroup announcing that its insurance plan would cover travel expenses for employees who need to travel out of state to get abortions, state Rep. Briscoe Cain of Texas threatened the bank with economic retaliation by barring them from doing any business with local governments.
Republicans try to justify these ridiculous political battles by telling a little fairy tale about the "woke" corporation. In this telling, the majority of everyday working Americans shared the cultural values of far-right Christian nationalists. But then these "woke" corporations came along and started shoving "Hollywood" values on unwilling Americans. So exacting economic punishment on companies for supporting LGBTQ and female employees is the only way to bring those companies in line with what Americans supposedly want.
I told you good people before that the nasty fascistic tendency of hard right, specifically and conservatives, in general, just demonstrate how truly awful they are. It is one thing to ban abortions in your own state but why prohibit women from acquiring an abortion in another state without the inane GOP reprisals against Citicorp? You ladies had better start paying attention. I really don't give a rats ass about far right Christian activists or their values, gee whiz....
When I ask these pointed questions, why do conservative always avoid and run away for dear life?
If you're not with them, you're the enemy. Very Hitleresque of them.
The Florida legislature on Thursday cleared a bill that would dissolve Disney's special improvement district, effective June 2023. all because the company spoke out against the state's recent Parental Rights in Education bill. The legislature acted so quickly there was no debate on the issue.
Essentially DeSantis has used his political power to punish a company for exercising its free speech.
With the special district is eliminated, Orange and Osceola counties would have to provide the local services currently provided by the special district. They're losing about a billion dollars that was provided by Disney for these services.
Estimates are that local residents will see their tax bills increase by 25%. To pick up the slack. All for political theater.
I hope the folks in Florida realize this.
Seems like many Republicans only want or support free speech for themselves.
"Free speech for me but not thee"
"Owning the libs" is turning into self-sabotage for the Republican Party.
"I hope the folks in Florida realize this."
The fact that more people don't express sheer indignation at the fact that a Florida institution, Disney, can be brought to nothing just because they voice opposition to GOP social issue nonsense, is the real story here.
This taste of Republican rule is bitter to the tongue. No one would have believed that this could happen as Disney have every right to speak and be heard as anyone else. It portends ill tidings for the future of this state and our country. They all Republican legislators went full lockstep in supporting this "bill". How quickly Republicans turn on their political cash cow when it is no longer convenient for them.
First they muzzle free speech, next they burn books, is burning bodies far behind?
People need to wake up and see tyranny and despotism being ever more introduced much like cream into your coffee.
I say and continue to say, with the current mindset of Republicans and conservatives, we are in trouble, all of us.
I'm shooting from the hip on this issue Cred, but I think it answers a question you asked in another thread: "What is this WOKE thing?"
It looks like "Woke" Disney employees created enough public fuss—demanding that Disney get involved in a political issue in support of their movement by making a strong statement condemning the new law. Demanding that Disney become a political tool for them. That is this "Woke" thing.
From the information provided, it looks like Disney did take a position, I think it was a reasonable one. And from the perspective of Disney's history of constantly advancing the human "equality" perspective of Liberal thinking, (not a bad inference), I think Disney has been a great friend of those folks. 30 years ago a man with a moustache couldn't get a job at Disney because they had a no-facial-hair policy, and today they have multi-race Cinderellas. And that's a good thing too.
That steady progress thing was fine, (I'm speculating of course, based on the lack of such incidents of this magnitude in their past), with the majority of its Liberal-leaning employees and supporters. That's also a good thing.
And then along came "WOKE." Step-by-step progress isn't good enough, Woke demands leaps—or nothing.
The Republican response relating to Disney is dumb and wrong. The Woke folks that forced Disney into their cultural fray are worse than dumb. It hurt their cause. It might be one of the rare times when 'stupid' is a tempting word choice.
There was no need for this battle. Those employees have forced an icon of eternal happy fantasy and fun, for generations of Americans, (except maybe this latest one), to become a cultural warrior, for their cause, against generations of happy Disney consumers and fans that don't agree with the leap from 2 sexes to 6, or 72. Or the leap that demands they call their son's new friend 'they'.
That's the Woke thing. And this dumb political backlash should have been easily predictable.
On another point, "Disney, can be brought to nothing " seems like quite a stretch. I wonder what the real impact on Disney will be.
What was going on within the Disney company and its employees, GA, is no excuse for the DeSantis and Republican legislature in this state to punish Disney for its opinions, one way or the other. It is just a muzzle on Disney's option to express its opinion.
Disney world has been an institution in this state for over 50 years, the punitive reaction by Republicans toward Disney, has to be more than just inconvenient for them.
In my opinion, they are two different issues.
I didn't offer any excuses. And I offered separate opinions on both issues; dumb and stupid. Otherwise, I didn't address the points of either one. I just offered this issue as an answer to your "WOKE" question.
Do you think it isn't? Don't you think Disney has been a friend and supporter of the 'semi-Woke'? Do you disagree that it was the actions of the employees that directed Disney's new statement?
It sounds as if you place blame on the employees? Or maybe I misunderstanding?
Employees had a right to express their opinion on their employers lack of response to the parental involvement in education bill. The Disney Corp. freely made the choice to speak out against it. They certainly could have chosen to remain silent on the bill and ignore their employees.
Regardless of the choice a private corporation makes to exercise free speech, they should not face political retribution for it.
The decision to change Disney's self-governing status is going to cost the residents of the surrounding counties 25% more in property tax.
I mean what is he accomplishing here?
Remembering that my comments were directed at using this Disney issue as an answer to Cred's question; "What is this WOKE thing?" Yes, I do think this is the employee's fault, the "woke" employees.
My previous explanation covers the "why." I didn't speak against the employees right to voice their opinion, or Disney's choice to enter the fray. I think you are wrong about Disney "freely" making their latest choice. It may be said they freely made their first statement, but it was coercion that demanded their second 'freely made' choice.
To the rest; the law, the details, the impact on Disney, etc. aren't the points I am speaking to, I only know the surface information about those details. Hence my "shooting from the hip' caveat.
I'm kicking at the "Woke" part of this issue. For those that don't see that component of the issue then they only see tilting at windmills.
Regardless of how Disney came to its decision to make their statement, is that statement not protected by our constitutional right to free speech? I'd suggest that DeSantis' attack on Disney violates the first amendment.
Corporations certainly are capable of expressing themselves, as Disney did. Government, in turn, may not retaliate against any speaker’s political speech.
This seems to be a departure from your view on the benefit of Elon Musk taking over Twitter and allowing free speech to reign. I don't understand your differentiation?
Maybe your confusion is because you think I support the Republican moves, both by DeSantis and the legislature. I don't, I didn't address the free speech component of this argument. So I don't see a conflict with my "Musk-like" free speech position.
Yes, isn't that the problem posting on here, when making points?
Many of our friends here often want to shift its meaning to a political position where one was not intended.
I dont think it was only a matter of "worse than dumb" employees.
https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-new … -rcna23888
Ron DeSantis seems to feel free speech is only okay if it meets his approval or standard. Otherwise it appears that you face retribution. He is quite an extremist.
As I read your link, it looks like it supports my comments:
"On March 11, after criticism from employees internally, Chapek announced that the company would pause all political donations in Florida and apologized for his first statement in a letter published on Disney’s website."
I am not 'omitting' the rest of the points in the article for a purpose, I am just noting that relative to the point I made about coercion by the employees, your link seems supportive rather than contradicting.
Finally, maybe my wording was clumsy, but my "dumb" and "stupid" designations were of the choice, not the people. Even though that seems to be splitting hairs, I am trying to point to the act, not the people—even if they are tied together.
Alright, GA, let's take a look at this "Woke" thing.
Are you speaking about the gay, lbtq stuff?
So, do not Disney employees, particularly of the affected class, have the right to address its employer as to how such draconian Republican legislation would affect them and their jobs at Disney? I would ask those kinds of questions.
Sometimes, step by step progress is not good enough. WE knew 30 years ago that there was nothing wrong with a non-white Disney princess. But we had to wait for all of you to be comfortable and cozy with the idea. While WE wait, people are being denied rights, economic opportunity and social acceptance and cohesion within the larger society. That was done with a great cost to those that were denied. And when you get down to it, that is the story of America, those that are told to wait until, YOU are ready, at a detriment to those who wait. America, at is very foundation is anti-woke.
People are to be accepted for who they are. There was a time that it was a stretch to accept a Black Cinderella. Being patient and letting time take its course is fine, but that depends on what side of the queue you stand upon.
I can't believe that this expression from Disney, who's to be welcoming to all as an opinion that has sparked these kinds of reprisals. When everybody just kept their mouth shut, Republicans were more than happy to feed at the trough of advantages derived by associating with Disney. We see how quickly Republicans can turn on a cash cow, once they "get out of line".
We are not connecting Cred.
I do support the employees' right to express their views, to the company and the public. They have done so and have not been restricted from continuing to do so. Also, in my exchanges I have not argued that right, so why would that be one of your questions?
It seems certain that you have seen my multiple explanations and clarifications, yet you still respond with criticisms or rationales that you had at the ready, even though there were no points to be "ready" for.
As for the rest of your comment? Once you turned to the directions of your "WE" rationales, you picked a path different than that of my comments.
What are you saying, maybe you are coming through garbled?
Can anyone else here tell me what you are trying to say?
I am trying to politely say my original comment, and all that followed have been directed to the consequences of what I view as Woke activism. Something you 'posed' as a question.
None of my comments have been to the validity, or faults of that activism, or of the Republican response to it. I certainly wasn't addressing the 'oppressor vs oppressed' or any racial inclusions in my point. Those were your insertions and are paths I don't want to follow in this discussion. They are unnecessary and polarizing insertions
They would be different discussions for me. We have had them before, and I wouldn't mind having them again another time, but look at the trouble we are having connecting on just the basic comment I introduced.
I offered you an example of "Woke" as an answer to your question, yet your responses haven't addressed that at all. Your responses have all been about the validity and 'rights' of the "Woke," not once about the validity of the 'answer'.
See what I mean now? But don't worry, I still like ya bud, we will have at it again, I'm sure.
Not deliberately turning a deaf ear, are you complaining because of woke activism, too much woke for you? OK, Disney should have listened to all of its middle of the road "mainstream" all American family sort of model types and silenced the troublemakers within its own company.
If the company would not have capitulated to the radicals in its midsts, there would have been no Disney CEO pressured to accommodate these woke types, publically.
So, Disney should have considered the vindictive, autocratic nature of the Republicans ahead of time, who had been at their trough and drinking of its sweet nectar, economically for the last 50 years. We do not want to say anything Or give any impression of independence in thought or action..
GOP makes it clear who actually runs this state and what happens when the GOP accuses you of heresy.
Yeah, I think I get it....
You don't quite have it, yet, but you did turn, so I will turn with you. Yes, I was complaining about woke activism but did so, (by inference), by offering this Disney issue as an example of what "WOKE" was, in answer to your question. I do think it is wrong and that this Disney thing was a dumb move. I also think this Woke thing is wrong in any social issue 'discussions'.
My previous explanation of Disney's progressive advances over the years, and of the step-by-step advancement of those progressive moves is the picture of my perspective on this issue.
The point I made was relative to reality. When you must move a mass, the inertia of that mass will decide whether it is moved in small pushes, (steps), or one great shove, (leaps)
In this perspective, the mass is nearly half of the national population. I don't know that any of our significant human rights progress has come in leaps on issues of this much mass, but several come to mind that shows it usually does more harm than good.
Also, my perspective isn't that this is an issue of "crumbs tossed," (the steps achieved), it's a matter of being realistic. Here's an open door for you: I think LBGT is a realistic movement, Woke is not. Woke will be a flash that flickers into the LBGT movement, but it has damaged that movement in its flash. LGBT only has to move about half of the public mass that has resistance, (30% of conservatives??), step-by-step, (as it has been doing). I would say that Woke did have to move about 95% of that conservative mass. Not much chance of that in a leap.
Put Woke on a scale of Liberal activism. Put Classic Liberals on the low end, involved, (as in supportive but not all gung-ho). liberals in the middle, and extreme 'march-organizing, megaphone inciting' Liberals on the high end.
I would put progressive liberals midway between the mean and the high, and Woke midway between them and high. Where would you put Woke? I would also say the closer to the mean the more power of movement there is. I think you can pick almost any 'successful' "Liberal-thinking" advancement and find the most successful, (I know, I have opened another door), have always been between the mean and progressive Liberals.
All that just to say asking folks to accept the reality of the LBGT movement is one step, asking them to accept that boys and girls are the same, or that a "he" is a "they" is a huge leap that will not make it.
Forcing a treasured icon, (in the public's view), to become an obvious political actor was a dumb mistake that has backfired.
As bad as the Republican response is, I bet less than 20% of conservatives think the new law is bad. Most will agree in measures that increase the resistance of the mass Woke needs to move, (and added to the resistance LBGT has to move??). They, (those Woke employees), only gained support from the support they already had. They lost any chance of reducing their opposing mass resistance.
That should have been obvious, it was dumb not to take it into account.
"That steady progress thing was fine, (I'm speculating of course, based on the lack of such incidents of this magnitude in their past), with the majority of its Liberal-leaning employees and supporters."
But is wasn't fine with conservative leaning employees and supporters, I wonder why?
Your physics example is an interesting one, regarding movement of mass.
My point was that the "mass" should not have been in this state of intransigence in the first place, so that the whole "lump" has to be incrementally moved to the point of finally seeing reason?
Yes, Woke is an attitude and not a movement. The LbTGQ people took the woke attitude beyond the reality of the average American Disney customer. Generations ago, me and mine were told the same thing about gradualism, and the movement of the mass stuff, but it was never good enough for me.
I don't know if I can put Woke as being an attitude on a scale, as how it applies depends on the issue, De Santis will tell you that a book from Alice Walker is Woke and must be censored ( woke- a over sensitive view of social justice and the pursuit of equality as its basic definition) Pushing aggressively to allow boys in the girl's lavatory could be excessively Woke.
While the first example is a mere red herring, the second could very well fit into the point you are making. I am not ready for that yet.
But you will say that if you have to be "dragged along" to accept interchangeable restrooms, why would it not be controversial for white America, the majority, to see prominent Mexican or African Americans characters as part of Disney, over the top 30 years ago?
I guess that I make a moral judgement which is difficult for me, that men and women are different, not one better than the other, but different. Society acknowledges those differences, but should not to the female's detriment.
Privacy and modesty between the sexes have been generally the rule and I will have to "dragged along" to accept a change to this in the public sphere.
Conservatives and me are like oil and water. They supported this because it was the edict from the big kahuna of their tribe, the actual efficacy of it was not any of their concern.
But people, ethnic and race are the same and no distinction should be made between or among them in the eyes of the law or the eyes of decent and intelligent citizens. I guess that I would have believed that this was easier to see rather than requiring the energy necessary to move an object into orbit. Why was that so difficult to realize 50 years ago? What does it take to wrest from the majority the levers of power and abuse?
I need to review what we the LBGTQ demands to Disney, did they really insist on unisex bathrooms as part of their protest or did they simply wanted their existence acknowledged and respected. That is the question, just what went too far?
What makes you think that Disney's past 30-years of step-by-step change wasn't okay with their conservative employees? I don't recall any news-making incidents like this one that shows they weren't.
'The mass of resistance shouldn't have been there to begin with.' Well, bless your heart, momma didn't tell you that life isn't fair?
Buck up buddy. The mass is there and it must be moved, so whatcha gonna do? Righteously claim you are right and do righteous things that make the task harder, (your failure will have the satisfying emollient of a perceived earned indignity), or do things that increase your chance of moving the mass?
To your men and women thing, the point was never about better or worse, it was simply about being "different." Since that can't be denied, folks with your sentiment always have to qualify it with a 'yeah but' Yours was 'Year but as long as it doesn't diminish 'them.' You don't need any "yeah buts". You agree that they are different. That is the point. Simply acknowledge it and move on. I don't see it as a moral judgment so it isn't difficult at all.
If I were the LBGT force, that has been slowly but steadily moving the boulder forward for all these years I would be pissed at the gadfly extremists that jump in and force one huge push to get that boulder over the top, (which history and common sense tell me won't work), and it backfires and I have to repeat a couple of those step-by-step efforts.
I don't think the Woke demands' details matter in the context of this discussion. Whatever they were, the Woke's activism turned this issue into a no-win situation for them. Smug self-righteousness isn't a substitute for a successful effort.
While life has been consistently more unfair for some in this country over others, I understand your point that change can only be accomplished incrementally. You can apply that to the LBGTQ point as well.
Correction, so the activism of the affected group should not have been grounds for the reaction against Disney. So, we all need to walk lightly and curtail our actions because we now have a viper in charge in Tallahassee?This reaction was to be anticipated and the Woke should have expected it and prepared for it? I say the State response was a move back action rather than forward. We will always disagree as to who the real culprit in all of this is. I say that it is DeSantis and the Republicans, while you blame the Woke? Just another one of the reasons that I will hold Republicans accountable come election time in this state.
We will just have to agree to disagree....
You are right, the activism of the affected group should not have been grounds for the reaction against Disney. But the product of this activism—forcing a non-overtly political American icon to become an overtly political icon, was grounds for the reaction.
That doesn't mean the reaction is right or justified, it simply means it wouldn't happen if Disney wasn't forced to withdraw an initial 'reasonable', (and safely non-political), public statement to issue a new one that amounted to a challenge to cultural war. Disney, the In-you-face Cultural Warrior. A supporter of all those nasty kitchen-table issues, (boy/girl, crt, etc.), that are serious stuff to a very large segment of the nation's people.
I know that last bit was hyperbole, but I bet there is a large part of the resisting mass that wouldn't think so. If you filter out the political part, the Tallahassee viper-type stuff, you might see this has nothing to do with treading lightly or kowtowing, it has to do with treading smartly, about picking your battles.
And here we are, right back to my entry: The Woke employees were wrong and made a dumb decision to force Disney to publicly become their advocate.
There's no disagreement bud, we're just talking about different things. ;-)
Now we just have to wait for the verdict.
How do you know they were forced?? Meaning that Disney's employees "forced" the CEO to take a stand? That's a big assumption on your part. You know as well as I do that the Disney Corp. could have easily ignored the concerns of some of their employees just as easily as many other corporations do.
Regardless, what happened to market forces solving these types of situations anyway? If customers don't agree with Disney's politics, Don't patronize them. Instead we have a state legislature getting involved purely out of retaliation for statements made?
It may have been misplaced trust but it wasn't my assumption. It was the reported situation, both by journalist sources and employee representative sources. IslandMom even provided a link that had a quote saying that it was employee dissatisfaction that pressured, (a force?), the release of a second, more strident statement.
You can think that the employees just earnestly convinced Disney to jump into a political fight if you want.
I don't think your market forces thought works here. The issue isn't an economic one that would, by nature, measure, give verdict, and adapt based on the vote of the consumer dollar. This is a political and cultural battle that isn't tied to economic measures. At least relative to the point of cause and responsibility. If you are talking about boycotts and financial stuff you might be right, but that isn't this battle.
I'd suggest that Gov. DeSantis’s retaliation against Disney is very dangerous for democracy. This is the behavior of a banana republic thug. Will he next punish corporations that encourage diversity, inclusion, and equity? He is banning diversity training in corporations as well as put forth his own gerrymandered voter map of Florida. It doesn't seem like there is much this man doesn't want to control.
What’s at issue is the use of such a policy as retaliation against Disney for taking a stand on DeSantis’s law.
Disney opposes the law on the grounds that “it could be used to unfairly target” LGBTQ kids and families. And this is an absolutely understandable fear.
But here again, the law’s specifics are beside the point. You don’t have to back Disney’s stance to agree that the company should not be punished with a change in government policy for expressing its opinion of the law.
So what does this tell me about a possible GOP future? Well, on multiple fronts, the Republican Party is growing much more inclined to use state power to fight the culture wars, well beyond just DeSantis.
Autocracy is growing in this country. It's being embraced by an increasing number of what I would call former Republicans.
FayettevilleFaye, with the best of intentions, (and that devil is on my shoulder again), I think you are looking at this all wrong. To reuse my newest analogy; you are arguing about the hair of the dog and ignoring the dog.
*I know I'm beating an old horse, (I won't let him die yet), but what the hell, it's a lazy Sunday morning. ;-)
I think the dog is a cultural battle, not a political Republican vs. Democrat one. All the details being argued—almost everywhere, are the hair of the dog—the details of the hair, not of the dog itself, (I know that reads like a Duh! statement). Look at the dog's details, those of the cultural battle, not the political ones of L v. R, or constitutionality, or rights, or retaliation, (well, that one is a dog detail too).
Consider your points without the political details. As bait, consider that all your thoughts about the wrongness of the Republican response are valid. And that the actions of the activist employees were valid. No argument from me.
Instead of Desantis or Republicans, think conservative values. And instead of Disney, think liberal values, (lower case c & l of values, not political affiliation).
Your response might start like this:
'The conservative response to a liberal attack is dangerous for our democracy. '
To that, I would say just the opposite. This battle will show our democracy working just as it should. Cultural wars are like WWI battles of 100 yds. trench fights—step by step advancement. That is our Constitution and democracy working just fine. We've had hiccups like Dred Scott, but I think we have most of those big wrinkles ironed out.
'What’s at issue is the use of such a policy as retaliation against liberals for taking a stand against conservative values.'
In this case, I think the Woke faction was wrong and dangerous for both sides. They forced a battle that should not have been fought. They are trying to skip a few trenches and are forcing the conservatives to bring out the artillery. And that is not a good thing for either side.
That's a start, give it a try. You might see a different battle to consider. The one using the hairs of the dog as proxies. Then the discussion could start with the validity or danger of subset factions, whether Woke or Evangelical.
In this case, I am all over Woke for the idiocy of their choices. Without them, there would be no matching idiotic response from the Republicans because this battle would not have happened. The steady progress of the liberal advancements would have continued as their norm. Now, the anomaly, (to the liberals' "norm), of Woke has disrupted that norm. More likely as a step backward instead of forward.
*one last caveat, (before Cred takes issue), my trench analogy was one of steady realistic achievement, nor 'crumbs' being tossed.
I appreciate your acknowlegement. But think about this, we have to think of the Florida GOP as monsters that we must cater to, we can't ruffle their feathers or they will destroy your infrastructure. How much power do they have to be able impose these draconian reprisals so quickly and upset a 55 year arrangement, because someone said something they did not like?I have to be concerned about the nature of that power and how easily it can be unleashed over any perceived slight. We are on the cusp of tyranny and despotism with Republicans and their conservative supporters taking the lead.
Do you also think you have to think of conservatives as monsters?
If the conservatives think the liberals are trying to teach the conservatives' young children that they can be of any sex they want must they think of the liberals as monsters?
Which battle do you think is most important to the effort of achieving equilibrium, the one about the details of degrees, (the criticisms of DeSantas' move and the validity of the Woke efforts), or the one about the realities of forward progress. I am arguing the latter is the more important battle to discuss. Any measure of progress is better than no measure.
In anticipation of you telling me you don't have any more cheeks to turn, or complaining that you guys are always expected to be 'the better person' and give in, I will answer that you are still thinking in terms of the smaller, lesser, battle. The bigger battle is about what happens to the resistance of that mass the liberals want to move. You should be more concerned about the dog.
I am harping on this theme because I'm all for forward progress—at a pace the mass of folks will accept. I think this Woke-incited Disney thing is harmful to that forward progress because it went too far, it asked too much, and it picked the worst possible warrior.
But, to your battle arguments, I generally agree, across the board. Now what are you going to do? I agree with you. No argument to be found. Let's use that agreement as a buzz clipper and shave the damn dog. Then we can talk about the important stuff. Like successfully continuing the progress of narrowing the natural c v. l cultural gap.
The way the Right has behaved in the last 10-15 years, the use of 'monster" is kind. I can't apologize for holding both them and their ideals in derision.
Looking at the "bill", I can't take issue with the idea that sex and sexual related topics would be inappropriate for third graders. I don't know, I don't remember a great number of LGBTQ kids when growing up. With this law, are we erasing the identity of these children as if they do not exist? Is this some sort of right wing red meat statement, how much of a problem is this gay kid thing, I mean, really? It could just be another manufactured issue to give DeSantis an opportunity to give the rightwingers copious amounts of that succulent red meat. Right up there with Voter Fraud, The Big Steal, Democrats running a child porno ring, and the moon being made of green cheese.
The first item among protesters’ demands is that Disney immediately cease all funding to those politicians’ campaigns:
A second item demands that Disney halt construction and investment in Florida “until hateful legislation is repealed,” and end efforts to relocate staff to Florida offices.
Other demands require that the company publicly commit to advocating for its LGBTQ staff, “even in the face of political risk. This must include full transparency into political and organizational contributions.” The list also asks that Disney “take responsibility for their inaction” by making substantial contributions to human rights advocacy groups “in an effort to regain our trust in the company’s inclusion and equality efforts.”
I can say that the demands from the LGBTQ community was stark and non negotiable in regards only to demand No. 2.
Counties in Florida immediately outside my own will have to pay more taxes from what I understand and there are ramifications that will not be good for taxpayers in those counties. The price for victory on this front of the culture war will take its toll on non combatants.
It is just funny how you can always advocate the contamination of liberal ideas and approaches in Washington by conservatives under the principles of moderation. Where was the "moderation" here? Where are the Democrats, or does this pachyderm party truly run the entire state without question or challenge? But this is an example why kumbaya and moderation with the other side will never work, case in point: Florida. So, who is ramming what down whose throat?
Yep, I usually do advocate for moderation. I also usually advocate that you understand what you are arguing against. That's not a jab at you, it just goes along with the moderation thing.
Great perspective, as usual GA, sometimes you are your best when "shooting from the hip".
Yeah, it's safer. I can always claim ignorance as a defense. ;-)
Do you see the inconsistency, as I do, when we decry companies that are "running the country" through donations and pressure on legislators to take a political stance the company likes but we don't and the total support of a company that joins the political fray with something we like?
It seems like hypocrisy to me: a business should not be involved in politics...unless they are on my side.
Not to say I side with Florida OR Disney in this case - I simply do not know enough about it to make a call - but the hypocrisy is evident. To me at least.
Indeed, Wilderness, I always expressed concern about corporate America running the country and having oversized influence in how Govenment is run.
Disney did not do anything more than to express its disapproval of the legislation coming out of Tallahassee. As much as I distrust and dislike the corporate establishment, I won't deny them their right to an opinion.
Republicans have supported the idea that corporations are people, if they are, then why are they not entitled to free speech rights without being visited upon with every sort of reprisal?
So, yes, your 2nd paragraph is correct, it is hypocrisy.
It does not matter the side you are on, no legislature regardless of party has the right to punish free speech,
I think in conjunction with that will come some significant state taxes on Disney for owning that property that they were not responsible for paying in the past.
I would imagine the taxes levied against Disney will be in excess of whatever costs there are to provide local services.
Considering Dinsey's penchant for screwing over American workers, replacing them with foriegn visa holding employees wherever possible and laying off American workers whenever its convenient without significant (often none) compensation provided, this could be a good thing.
These mega-corporations walk all over their employees as well as the States that provide them every tax break in existence... its nice to see one of them getting kicked in the teeth.
Noted, Ken, but no one was talking about that as long as Disney did not "cross" the Republicans or their legislative agenda....
In general that may be a true statement.
In specific I have mentioned my dislike for Disney on more than one occasion, regarding the way they handle employees, if nothing else.
See my links above (other post), they were easy for me to find as I am familiar with how ruthless or uncaring Disney can be.
Are you saying that political retaliation against a corporation or individual for expressing a view/opposing legislation is acceptable?
They did more than express an opinion, they stated they would take direct political action and try to interfere with the political process.
"interfere" with the political process? I call that participation in the political process which is a key part of our democracy. Corporations aren't allowed? Ultimately their accountability is to their customer and their shareholders.
Even political spending by corporations is allowed. Remember the Ctizens United ruling?
The court’s opinion: Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that limiting “independent political spending” from corporations and other groups violates the First Amendment right to free speech.
For decades, many conservative politicians and leaders worked to grant businesses more legal rights to participate in our political process, especially via campaign contributions. Those persistent efforts via lobbying, legislation and litigation reached critical inflection points with the Supreme Court cases Citizens United and Hobby Lobby, in 2010 and 2014, respectively. Those decisions effectively empowered businesses to use their funds and resources to engage in political advocacy and social activism unrelated to their primary commercial pursuits as never before.
Unsurprisingly, we are witnessing an unprecedented era of activist CEOs who use their companies as platforms to amplify social causes.
Corporations are huge funders of lobbyists and think tanks that sway opinion as well. All legal.
There are no barriers to a corporation taking a political view or stance.
Microsoft went as far as advocating for immigrants by taking part in a lawsuit, along with Princeton University and one of its students, against the federal government’s decision to sunset the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.
Lastly, the Supreme Court said in Hartman v. Moore (2006), “official reprisal for protected speech ‘offends the Constitution [because] it threatens to inhibit exercise of the protected right.’” Nor does it matter how the government retaliates against a person or business who expresses an opinion that the government does not like. Any official retaliation against someone because they engaged in First Amendment-protected speech is unconstitutional.
Could you provide links to what Disney proposed to do? And how it is somehow beyond their right to do?
Disney was responsible to runs the district and was responsible for collecting taxes and guaranteeing municipal services such as fire-fighting, energy, garbage collection, water treatment, and road maintenance. In exchange, the company has been exempted from paying taxes in the territory.
Not sure what this law will do to the tax breaks they have been getting for many years. In my view, Disney should have stayed out of politics. It would seem this was the problem. Maybe just respecting all's ideologies would have been the best route.
"As Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the “Don’t Say Gay” bill into law on Monday, The Walt Disney Company issued a statement vowing to help repeal the controversial legislation.
“Florida’s HB 1557, also known as the ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill, should never have passed and should never have been signed into law,” the statement reads. “Our goal as a company is for this law to be repealed by the legislature or struck down in the courts, and we remain committed to supporting the national and state organizations working to achieve that. We are dedicated to standing up for the rights and safety of LGBTQ+ members of the Disney family, as well as the LGBTQ+ community in Florida and across the country.”
Disney’s public opposition to the law follows an employee walkout in protest of CEO Bob Chapek’s mishandling of the “Don’t Say Gay” bill.
Earlier this month, Chapek drew backlash for Disney’s quiet response to the bill as it made its way through the Florida legislature, as well as a report that the company HAS GIVEN MONEY to the bill’s sponsors. Variety exclusively reported that before the bill passed the Florida Senate, LGBTQ Disney employees sent the CEO and other company leaders a letter requesting the company “issue a public statement condemning anti-LGBTQIA+ policies in the U.S.”
When Chapek did issue a public statement, which claimed the “biggest impact” Disney can make “in creating a more inclusive world is through the inspiring content” it produces, he sparked outrage for taking a soft stance.
At a shareholders meeting days later, Chapek announced that Disney would pledge $5 million to the Human Rights Campaign and other LGBTQ rights organizations, also saying he would meet with Gov. DeSantis to discuss Disney’s “concerns” about the legislation.
Pixar employees then issued a letter demanding Disney withdraw financial support of all legislatures who supported the “Don’t Say Gay” bill and “take a decisive publ
ic stand” against the legislation and others like it. The letter also alleges that Disney corporate executives have demanded cuts from “nearly every moment of overtly gay affection… regardless of when there is protest from both the creative teams and executive leadership at Pixar.”
https://variety.com/2022/film/news/disn … 235217086/
Disney had every right to speak up, but it would seem they have created a problem that both sides will need to live with. Disney has attracted conservative rath and will lose tax breaks and Republicans have lost a ton of campaign funds that Disney was always good.
Not sure if new taxes will be more benefit the counties and state.
"Florida state Rep. Randy Fine, R-Palm Bay, who has helped champion the bill, told CNBC on Thursday that local taxpayers would not pay more — and could actually benefit from Reedy Creek’s elimination. Fine said the tax revenue that Disney pays would be transferred to local government and could more than pay for the added services.
“Those taxes will continue to be paid,” he said. “They will just be paid to Orange and Osceola county instead of this special improvement district. The taxpayers could end up saving money because you’ve got duplicative services that are being provided by this special district that are already being done by those municipalities.”
Could the legislature of Florida simply let the Disney corporation exercise its constitutional right to free speech without political retaliation?
Well, they do have free speech rights. They are, in theory, an entertainment company. If they would like to lobby and express their feelings about the entertainment business, that is fine.
Disney changed things. They are no longer an entertainment business; they became a political action company. They used their platform to try and influence political issues.
So, if they want to do such a thing, the state of Florida is well within their right to take back the many, many, special privileges given to Disney that is afforded no other company.
These special privileges were given to an entertainment company, not a political action company. I wish Disney well on pursuit of being a political company.
When companies change, things around them also change.
I'm not sure that I can agree that roller coasters, Dumbo rides and hot dog stands are a part of a PAC, but it is an interesting thought that deserves consideration.
I believe it'll come down to a constitutional first amendment issue. The retaliation was taken by the legislature indirect response to Disney's statements.
DeSantis told reporters Tuesday Disney’s statement was “fundamentally dishonest and crossed a line "
Which lines of free speech were crossed?
We essentially have a governor, legislature of a state deciding who crosses lines of free speech? And therefore retaliates?
Are they muzzled in their right to weigh in on what is happening in their state because they are just an "entertainment company"?
An entertainment company that have thousands on its payroll and helps make it possible for me not to have a state income tax. That is an entertainment company who is not be to just dismissed.
When the CEO of a company begins making videos about political issues rather than promote their company, they are now a political entity.
They are an entertainment company that got many tax breaks and other benefits not offered to any other company by the state of Florida.
Now they aren't so special and their special deals that got them hundreds of millions of dollars have been taken away.
Now, they're being treated like any other Florida company. The state of Florida did not have to give them any type of special designation.
The CEO would have been better off just giving money to groups that support his ideas and not making several videos that were pushed all over social media.
You want to play politics, you get what comes with playing politics.
"When the CEO of a company begins making videos about political issues rather than promote their company, they are now a political entity."
Political entity? I don't think there is any basis for that statement.
Would it not be the place of the shareholders to address that issue? There is absolutely nothing that says a CEO of a private corporation can't make a video about anything they want. Political or otherwise.
Come on now, where is all this support for free speech as is given on a silver platter to Elon Musk if he takes over Twitter? This is getting a little bit hypocritical.
DeSantis chose to take away Disney's self-governance in direct relation to a free speech comment. It is political retaliation.
It's a first amendment issue.
Florida has essentially become an autocracy.
I wish more people could stop twisting themselves to support a party regardless of the facts.
I don't care if he flooded the internet and social media hourly with videos or commentary. It would be up to their shareholders and board to hold the CEO accountable not the governor or legislature of a state.
My goodness, what happened to smaller government? Less government overreach? DeSantis has his hand in everything.
And ultimately, if customers of Disney don't like their politics let that play out like it has for many other corporations through history.
"Come on now, where is all this support for free speech as is given on a silver platter to Elon Musk if he takes over Twitter? This is getting a little bit hypocritical."
Two different companies. Elon Musk is simply trying to take over a company that crushes free speech.
What's the big deal with Disney now being treated like every other company in Florida?
"What's the big deal with Disney now being treated like every other company in Florida?
Jenna Ellis, Mr. Trump's former campaign attorney sums it up:
"The point of constitutionally protected free speech is to speak without threat of government censorship or retaliation. Gov. DeSantis and Florida Republicans openly admit that their revocation of Disney's special entitlements are in retaliation to Disney's statements objecting to the Parental Rights in Education Bill. This is weaponizing government to punish a private company for exercising free speech. Republicans like DeSantis have championed Elon Musk's fight for free speech, have called Democrats petty tyrants for censorship of conservative speech, and yet seem perfectly fine with retaliating against Disney when they speak viewpoints conservatives don't prefer. This is the height of hypocrisy and anti-free speech."
The Republicans behaved tyrannically, and we, in opposition, are watching and will direct attention to this as a negative against them in The future.
Regardless of what you're saying, I will always see this as a vindictive response taking place within an unchallenged Republican regime. I will hold this against the GOP generally and De Santis, specifically.
I am waiting for the reprisals from our side.....
Another interesting perspective, Disney did state that it was going to take direct action against anyone that supported the bill, stating that the CEO(?) would even go "talk" the Governor.
I have disliked Disney for a long while now:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/insourci … b_11173074
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/nr … 540612.cms
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/07/nightma … -toys.html
https://www.change.org/p/tell-disney-st … ren-s-toys
To fund the government services of Reedy Creek, Disney effectively taxes itself. While the precise tax flows of Reedy Creek are unclear, Scott Randolph, the tax collector for Orange County, said the Reedy Creek district collects roughly $105 million annually in general revenue.
On top of the $105 million, Disney also pays local property taxes. Public records show Disney is the largest taxpayer in central Florida, paying over $280 million in property taxes to the counties between 2015 and 2020.
But legislators and tax experts warn the bill creates an even larger potential problem for taxpayers in the form of bonds totaling more than $1 billion.
Reedy Creek has bond liabilities of between $1 billion and $1.7 billion, according to the district's financial filings. Under Florida statute, if Reedy Creek is dissolved, those liabilities are transferred to the local governments either Bay Lake or Lake Buena Vista, or more likely, Orange and Osceola counties.
If the liabilities of $1.7 billion or more are transferred to Orange and Osceola counties, he said, the debt could amount to $1,000 per taxpayer.
"If the counties are left holding the bag, the state might have to come to their aid," Farmer said. "So it's not even just a tax issue for these two counties. It affects every taxpayer in the state of Florida."
But my Big question here is one of free speech.
Ron DeSantis says Disney “crossed a line” denouncing his parental rights and education bill.
What?! I'm 100% certain that the constitution guarantees company's right to speak and support or not support legislation without government consequences.
https://www.mediaite.com/opinion/conser … r-florida/
The GOP isn't just declaring war on Disney they're also aggressively going after teachers. A bill to allow parents to sue Arizona teachers for “usurping the fundamental right” of a parent in raising their children won approval from state Senate Republicans on Monday and is one vote away from Gov. Doug Ducey’s desk. The wording is so vague it will leave teachers open to frivolous lawsuits.
Supporters of the bill said it was "necessary" to subject teachers to lawsuits in order to bring transparency to schools. The bill also allows parents to go after librarians for recommending books that conflict with a parent’s worldview. Good luck recruiting new teachers. Looks like many want to put parents in charge of schools rather than highly skilled and educated teachers. Performative politics is going to ruin education.
If parents feel that they cannot trust the teachers employed by their school districts they should seriously look into homeschooling.
This is a very real problem and, I think, a nationwide one. Not to say that every state is following this path, but parents are becoming more and more disillusioned with what is being taught in our schools.
Bad enough that we have kids graduating that cannot read past a 3rd grade level and can't do simple arithmetic, but we are seeing more and more of politically (and religiously) based curriculum being used. CRT is but the latest.
Nor is it all from the left - the far right with the insistence on teaching creationism as a science is but one example from that side of the table.
I have yet to see an example brought forward of a textbook that has been adopted for use in any school district in this country that covers the topic of critical race theory outside of law school.
I can offer you an example of this textbook that had been used for 10 years in a San Antonio Texas public school.
Prentice Hall Classics: A History of the United States, published by the Pearson, includes this exercise dealing with slavery:
"The Life of Slaves: A Balanced View,” asked students to list the negative and positive aspects of slavery."
Anyone care to list a few of the positive aspects here?
Parents eventually objected to the book. Circulated the assignment on Facebook. It took them a very long time as I've said before, my experience has shown me that a great many parents don't have much interest. But the avenues are already there for them to be involved in their child's education including having input on the books that are used.
https://spectrumlocalnews.com/tx/san-an … of-slavery
Personally, I found the comments in your link to ignore the question entirely, basing their statement on the fact that slavery is immoral and therefore there WAS nothing good about it. They did not, therefore, respond to the question at all, simply gave their own personal concept of morality.
But your challenge is interesting. Here is a list of a few good things about slavery (from the point of the slave; the owners obviously have quite a few positives):
Better health care for most. Slaves were expensive and that cost was protected.
Better housing, for the same reason.
An introduction to the One True God
Likely a longer life, because they were protected from disease and environmental dangers.
Just a start, and please do not misunderstand me here. These are examples that might have been given in the past, not ones I personally would suggest - the problem (in my own mind) is that they ALL depend on the assumption that someone else knows better than the slave how they should live and what price slaves should pay to achieve that kind of life.
And here is the hidden knife prick in that assumption; do we not do the same thing today? Can't drink a Big Gulp. Can't smoke a cigarette. Must wear a seat belt. Our laws are rife with instances where "Big Brother", or some other do-gooder, will decide for us how we should live, how we should act and behave...and do so solely for our own good. Because we are better off if they can just force us to do as they think we should.
And we not only accept that we build on it and put our own two cents in as to how our neighbors should behave.
Is this kind of reasoning and control using the exact same line of reasoning that slave owners did? Are we really the paragons of moral virtue we portray ourselves, or are we no better than the slave owner that used the same "logic" to justify their actions?
What is wrong with teaching History accurately?
"Coby Burren was reading his textbook, sitting in geography class at Pearland High School near Houston, when he noticed a troubling caption. The 15-year-old quickly took a picture with his phone and sent it to his mother.
Next to a map of the United States describing "patterns of immigration," it read that the Atlantic slave trade brought "millions of workers from Africa to the southern United States to work on agricultural plantations."
"We was real hard workers wasn't we," Coby texted, adding a sarcastic emoji."
Coby caught a textbook error that had been missed by several editorial layers, starting with mega publisher McGraw-Hill Education, followed by the official textbook reviewers and, finally, members of the Texas Board of Education who have the final say on materials like this.
No mention in this lesson of Africans forced to the U.S. as slaves.
This was a very common book for that level of social studies. I would think that hundreds of thousands of teachers would remember it because they used it.
Can we do better? Should we do better?
Under legislation being passed in multiple states today, would parents also have the right to sue teachers who are unfortunate enough to have to teach from this book? Or any other book that white washes history?
My point is, our problems aren't being solved by the culture wars being waged against teachers and schools.
I still think some parents today want an accurate representation of history. Unfortunately it's being called "woke".
It never used to be this way though. Back in the day we called it honestly. I can still remember my history book having hand-drawn photos depicting slaves chained in the hull of ships head to foot with The footnote that slave traders expected a certain percent to not make the transatlantic journey. As a child I don't think I felt guilty or had ownership for what those did in distant history. Why do we think kids would have that guilt today? Then came a point though I believe in the '80s that the direction drastically changed to soften the story of slavery. Currently, there's obviously a lot of resistance to teaching accurate history.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/us/p … rkers.html
Wilderness, how droll. You can't compare seat belt laws and no smoking areas with the Institution of slavery and its application. If you can do that, then you have a lot to learn.
I fully agree; we are whitewashing our history to make it more palatable and to soften the impact.
But why would kids today feel guilt? Because they are being taught that the color of their skin makes them guilty. That, too, is part of being "woke" and is an integral part of CRT - that Caucasians today are responsible for what people did hundreds of years ago and must now pay the price for it.
We see it in demands for "reparations", we see it in a racist President that makes race and sex a part of who will be considered for a job, we see all over the country when a group from history has their transgressions transmitted to individuals today, based solely on the color of their skin.
And yes, teachers are playing a part in it. Intentionally or not, they are (often by requirements) teaching racism is acceptable, right and proper...because of actions in the distant past by other people.
"Coby caught a textbook error that had been missed by several editorial layers, starting with mega publisher McGraw-Hill Education, followed by the official textbook reviewers and, finally, members of the Texas Board of Education who have the final say on materials like this.
No mention in this lesson of Africans forced to the U.S. as slaves.
This was a very common book for that level of social studies. I would think that hundreds of thousands of teachers would remember it because they used it."
This was no error, Faye, it was deliberate.
How can so many teaching professionals overlook such a glaring error? Yet ,a student/kid can so easily identify it.
It is part of the Right's mission to sanitize the truth of the reality of slavery in American history. This was just an example of this.
Yes, this is the real nature of what the Right actually seeks, in their manufactured confusion between CRT and the accurate teaching of American history in the eyes of the public.
Just who else is in on it and how far up the food chain does it actually go?
Just my opinion.....
by Sharlee 2 weeks ago
DeSantis declared an end to the 'corporate kingdom' before signing the bill into law.This comes on the heels of Gov. Ron DeSantis signing a bill that prevents classroom instruction on gender identity and sexual orientation through the third grade.The bill revokes Disney’s special tax...
by Credence2 21 months ago
https://thehill.com/changing-america/en … faculty-beCheck out this article from the Hill, I always say that Republicans and conservatives suck and they reaffirm that for me every day.Question:What if, as a student or students, we refuse to participate in such a survey? I don't see how my...
by Scott Belford 2 weeks ago
Florida is quickly sinking into an authoritarian theocracy under the hand of Ron DeSantis.His latest two assaults on any standards of decency is 1) Promoting a new law that prevents Florida public colleges and universities from teaching a curriculum based on unproven, theoretical or exploratory...
by logic,commonsense 12 years ago
Running off to Illinois, the Dems in the Wisconsin state legislature were too cowardly to face a vote that they knew they would lose. Tremendous statesmen these cowards are! If they had a better idea why weren't they able to convince anyone of it? It's all a political ploy...
by JOC 5 months ago
So, is it too soon to talk about the issues. DeSantis is claiming they signed a consent form. The migrants are claiming they were lied to.Does DeSantis have any legal exposure for his stunt of hiring a company to lure migrants from Texas to then ship to Massachusetts? In terms of...
by Credence2 2 weeks ago
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/were-done-cal … 00299.htmlWhen I look at what DeSantis did with "woke" Disney, I find a Democrat willing to put WALGREENS on notice regarding its rightwing capitulation to conservatives quite appealing.That places Newsom as a bold Democrat and a man I that...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|