Bob Chapek's response to Florida's 'Don't Say Gay' bill

[HM Spectre]

Of course, the inclusivity being discussed is not about embracing every political view as equally valid. The current debate is viewed by many as a struggle between those who want to include everybody equally in society and those who want to define certain people as abnormal, beyond the pale. With that understanding of the discussion, a company that claims to support inclusivity can only find itself on one side of the argument.

All entertainment is political, so the idea of one of the world's largest entertainment companies "staying out of politics" is an impossibility. And the folks arguing for supposedly apolitical entertainment are perfectly happy with media that mocks or derides positions they don't hold. Thanos, for instance, was a sort of caricature of Malthusianism, but only a very, very few radical voices objected to his depiction.

Disney's most valuable IP at the moment is Marvel, which makes these demands that Disney produce only apolitical entertainment even more absurd. Marvel has ALWAYS been explicitly, even ham-handedly, political. Disney is getting ready to introduce their version of the X-Men - are they supposed to make sure that those films have nothing to say about contemporary civil rights struggles?

Why does all entertainment have to be political?

The entertainment industry may currently be operating that way but that doesn’t have to be the case... and quite frankly, people are getting tired of it. There’s a big difference between a film having a light-hearted moral and being overtly political/ramming an agenda into a story. The farther away you get from the former and into the latter, the greater the risk of alienating people.

Politics is absolutely everywhere and inescapable today. There is an IMMENSE value in providing relatively neutral entertainment or at the very least, being so lightly political that it doesn’t drive away half your audience. What’s more, entertainment like that holds tremendous value in times like these as it’s something that people are able to unite around and enjoy together despite everything else that divides us.

While TWDC certainly has the right to produce content with a political slant, it’s most certainly not in its best interest to jam politics into everything it offers. Do it in a subtle way and people are likely not to care. Do it in a film or two and people will just ignore those offerings for your other content.

But put politics and an agenda into everything you’re doing in an overt way and people will take their dollars elsewhere… especially when it involves pushing that message to their children. That’s exactly what will happen here unless TWDC remembers what made the company so successful in the first place.

 

[Andrew C]

this bill is INTENTIONALLY designed to give the most radical, illogical individual members of society a veto over how children are treated.

Somewhat of a side note....are you not describing Hollywood though, based on their track record when it comes to children? I mean how many child actors get sexually assaulted by those in the industry that they are supposed to trust (from the lowest to highest levels)? How many Disney stars make it to adulthood WITHOUT significant mental issues? Who have been the leaders in sexualizing children from a very young age? The entire industry is an absolute disaster for children. So maybe we need to rethink who the radicals are here. Is it parents? no. LGBTQ members? No. Republicans and Dems? No. Disney and the rest of their industry? hmmmm.....maybe we have a winner. And this is why I just cannot stand involvement from Disney and the rest of Hollywood. They really make me sick.

 

[lazyboy97o]

"If you can't prove it is happening here, it's not valid"

Terrible argument, all it takes is one child to be abused by this legislation to be worthwhile. Also, the legislation doesn't stop people from being gay, so regardless of the author, or sponsors opinions, if the law is fair and just (which is it in terms of discrimination), your argument doesn't stand up. Complaining about people and not the law isn't a good way to get people to agree with you, and if that's not your goal, what is? Do you just want to complain for the sake of complaining?

If one is claiming that an ongoing issue is going to be stopped then the onus is on the one making that claim to demonstrate that it is happening.

The defense of this legislation is all over the place and contradictory. It somehow both meets a need and doesn’t change anything. It can’t be both. If it meets a need then that need should be identifiable. It it changes nothing then it is a waste of time and resources. It’s about all sort of inappropriate topics, except those topics being included was rejected.

The intent of the authors is very important. The best reading is that the law doesn’t do what it’s writers intended. How is that not an absolutely bizarre claim? It means the author is so bad at his job that he tries to do one thing but does something else entirely. If the author so bungled his intent then what else did he bungle? He clearly isn’t good at writing legislation that does as intended, so what other unintended outcomes are there going to be? Why support the work of someone who openly had ill intent if it changes nothing? Why does is that support to accomplish nothing so important?

 

[mkt]

Except they're not being inclusive here.

Political stances are a choice

Gender identity isn't.

Disney isn't doing anything against who one is, but they are against their choices.

Choices have consequences. This is one: deal with it.

 

[Artemicon]

If one is claiming that an ongoing issue is going to be stopped then the onus is on the one making that claim to demonstrate that it is happening.

The defense of this legislation is all over the place and contradictory. It somehow both meets a need and doesn’t change anything. It can’t be both. If it meets a need then that need should be identifiable. It it changes nothing then it is a waste of time and resources. It’s about all sort of inappropriate topics, except those topics being included was rejected.

The intent of the authors is very important. The best reading is that the law doesn’t do what it’s writers intended. How is that not an absolutely bizarre claim? It means the author is so bad at his job that he tries to do one thing but does something else entirely. If the author so bungled his intent then what else did he bungle? He clearly isn’t good at writing legislation that does as intended, so what other unintended outcomes are there going to be? Why support the work of someone who openly had ill intent if it changes nothing? Why does is that support to accomplish nothing so important?

There have been instances of teachers doing this in areas other than Florida, which fortifies the need for such legislation.

The defense of the legislation is just as all over the place as the attack on the legislation, and that is a problem due to the media misrepresenting the legislation, and others not doing their homework on the facts of the legislation (among the many revisions).

The intent of the authors and sponsors is only important as far as what teachers can legally be held accountable for, which in this case doesn't single out any one preference. A piece of legislation can still be a good thing even if it doesn't reflect the bigoted views of people who proposed it. I would agree that the author isn't the best at writing legislation, but I would say it's accomplishing something, and guidelines are on the books to stop instruction of "sex" already, so while I would have wanted that to be in legislation for k-3 as well, it isn't strictly needed.

 

[mkt]

There have been instances of teachers doing this in areas other than Florida, which fortifies the need for such legislation.

List them, cite them. Give specifics.

Dates, names, locations. What exactly happened?

 

[Artemicon]

Gender identity isn't.

People change their gender like their clothes. They call it gender fluid, and it literally means a gender which isn't fixed and changes.

 

[mkt]

People change their gender like their clothes. They call it gender fluid, and it literally means a gender which isn't fixed and changes.

Gender fluid is an identity onto itself.

 

[lazyboy97o]

There have been instances of teachers doing this in areas other than Florida, which fortifies the need for such legislation.

The defense of the legislation is just as all over the place as the attack on the legislation, and that is a problem due to the media misrepresenting the legislation, and others not doing their homework on the facts of the legislation (among the many revisions).

The intent of the authors and sponsors is only important as far as what teachers can legally be held accountable for, which in this case doesn't single out any one preference. A piece of legislation can still be a good thing even if it doesn't reflect the bigoted views of people who proposed it. I would agree that the author isn't the best at writing legislation, but I would say it's accomplishing something, and guidelines are on the books to stop instruction of "sex" already, so while I would have wanted that to be in legislation for k-3 as well, it isn't strictly needed.

If the concern is teachers acting on their own then the focus should be on that. The process for dealing with teachers who step out of bounds should be addressed. That though is not addressed.

What about the legislation has been misrepresented? Invoking gay people was not started by opponents. It does allow law suits. It doesn’t apply to wider inappropriate discussions of sex. It is purposefully vague.

What is this accomplishing? Give the specifics of what gaps it fills.

 

[Artemicon]

Gender fluid is an identity onto itself.

"I change my gender when I want, but it's supposed to be fixed, so I create a new identity which allows me to change it whenever I want, and still be fixed.". I'm sorry, that's ridiculous.

If the concern is teachers acting on their own then the focus should be on that. The process for dealing with teachers who step out of bounds should be addressed. That though is not addressed.

What about the legislation has been misrepresented? Invoking gay people was not started by opponents. It does allow law suits. It doesn’t apply to wider inappropriate discussions of sex. It is purposefully vague.

What is this accomplishing? Give the specifics of what gaps it fills.

Just in this very board people have said it strips certain people of their civil-rights, how? That's a misrepresentation. The media is rife with misrepresentations like this.

As far as what the legislation accomplishes, it prevents teachers in grades k-3 from instruction on sexual-orientations and gender-identities, but I know you knew this already.

 

[mkt]

"I change my gender when I want, but it's supposed to be fixed, so I create a new identity which allows me to change it whenever I want, and still be fixed.". I'm sorry, that's ridiculous.

No.
"My gender is fluid, and I identify as such"

 

[Californian Elitist]

"I change my gender when I want, but it's supposed to be fixed, so I create a new identity which allows me to change it whenever I want, and still be fixed.". I'm sorry, that's ridiculous.

That’s not what gender fluidity is. Gender is a social construct. Someone who is gender fluid does not feel 100% tied to the social constructs of gender and what society says about how and what gender should look like, according to their sex.

Prince was a prime example. He sometimes wore suits, but had no problem wearing feminine-looking clothing and rocking a perm/press and curl. Frida Kahlo was another great example.

 

[Communicora]

That’s not what gender fluidity is. Gender is a social construct. Someone who is gender fluid does not feel 100% tied to the social constructs of gender and what society says about how and what gender should look like, according to their sex.

Prince was a prime example. He sometimes wore suits, but had no problem wearing feminine-looking clothing and rocking a perm/press and curl. Frida Kahlo was another great example.

I don’t think you can take the androgyny of someone like Prince and apply modern gender identity labels. Prince didn’t identify as a woman when he wore so-called feminine clothes and he wasn’t an enby who wanted a gender neutral bathroom. He was more subversive about the concept of gender than today’s labels imply.

 

[Californian Elitist]

I don’t think you can take the androgyny of someone like Prince and apply modern gender identity labels. Prince didn’t identify as a woman when he wore so-called feminine clothes and he wasn’t an enby who wanted a gender neutral bathroom. He was more subversive about the concept of gender than today’s labels imply.

I would argue that he still applies to the definition. We weren’t talking about gender fluidity in his time, but I would say he still qualifies. I see where you’re coming from, though.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Just FYI, Christina Pushaw, Desantis’ spokesperson, just retweeted an image of her holding up Mickey Mouse’s severed head.

Chris Rufo, one of the main activists behind the assault on public education and a champion of deceptive tactics (a tweet from him appeared earlier in this thread), tweeted “We are waging moral war against Disney. We are directly targeting their public reputation. We are turning half of their customers against them.”

In case it was unclear who wants this fight.

 

[mkt]

In case it was unclear who wants this fight.

Looks like we're at the "Battle of Lake Buena Vista" in the culture war of 2022.

 

[fgmnt]

No.
"My gender is fluid, and I identify as such"

Seems like something where the poster challenging you could do some homework, as they suggested for the bill itself earlier.

Speaking of the bill, I might have been put in timeout in this thread 7 days ago and I dont see how the thread has gotten any better. It’s the same 3-5 people challenging in vain another 3-5 people who refuse to veer from the talking points of their masters. The Walt Disney Company’s CEO was caught flat footed and got eaten alive by the Republican culture war machine in Florida, and now the company is in the crosshairs of said machine. That’s the story.

 

[mkt]

The Walt Disney Company’s CEO was caught flat footed and got eaten alive by the Republican culture war machine in Florida, and now the company is in the crosshairs of said machine. That’s the story.

This is everything, right here.

 

[FettFan]

I agree teachers should be paid a reasonable amount. However, anyone that posts teachers should be paid more should also post what government benefits are you willing to give up or how much more you are willing to pay in taxes. I am willing to pay a few hundred more in state taxes to pay teachers but want the school adminiatration cut too.

Speaking as a teacher, I’d be happy to excise the myriad of useless programs that are hoisted upon us by school boards each year. AVID, SEL, etc.

Also, stop giving money to The College Board. It’s a bloody pay-for-higher-school-rating operation.

 

[WDWJoeG]

We’ve already hashed out examples like this in this thread, to little fruitful conversation.

I haven’t seen this shared here yet, but Bob Iger has weighed in:

Bob Iger, In CNN+ Interview With Chris Wallace, Makes The Case For Why CEOs Should Weigh In On ‘Don’t Say Gay’ Bill And Other Issues: “It’s About Right And Wrong”

One of Chris Wallace‘s first guests on his new CNN+ series is former Walt Disney Co. CEO Bob Iger, who makes the case for why corporate leaders should wade into major issues like climate change, immigration and, most recently, Florida‘s so-called ‘don’t say gay’ bill. “A lot of these issues are...

deadline.com

And that is the inherent fallacy of Iger's position. DeSantis would say HE was doing "what is right" and those who oppose are "wrong".