In the abstract, and in isolation, I would agree with this. However, context matters.
If this thread was titled something like:
"Reasons to boycott Disney!"
"Dangers to Disney stock price."
"Has Disney gone to woke?"
"Is Disney management competent?"
All very possible threads you could run into on this site. Discussion that Disney should or should not have made the comments it did would all fit in very nicely. Was it a good business choice, should they have made a different statement, should it have been private employee communication instead of public. Should consumers change Disney spending. Lots of discussion points about what actions Disney should or should not have taken.
However, none of that is the context of this thread.
This thread is clearly about changes to RCID. What is being changed. How, why, by whom, the impacts, reasons for the change, if it is legal, Disney's response to the changes. Everything in this thread is in the context of what is happening to RCID.
Within that context, as related to the changes to RCID, saying Disney shouldn't have said anything isn't in isolation. It is read by everyone as "Disney shouldn't have said anything and then nothing would have happened to RCID".
The context matters and that context is victim blaming and that if only they had kept their mouth shut nothing would have happened to RCID. There's going to be pushback against this opinion every time. No amount of "but I don't agree with the governor" is going to change that. As, in the context of what is going on with RCID, no amount of extra text is going to change how people read it, in this context. This thread, as has been pointed out many times, is supposed to be about what is going on related to RCID not about general political thoughts.
Yes, and if I’m correct there is also a prohibition on circumventing this restriction through a “conduit.”
Unlike other bills during a regular session, these bills were not sent to a committee for discussion and examination of possible consequences. There was no economic study done on the ramifications of dissolving the district. There was no consultation with the counties involved or any open forum for citizens to voice their opinions.
I saw something that Jim Korkis wrote last year when all this started.
Can anyone confirm this has been the case for all of the bills that passed?
I think this accurately characterises what it is that’s bothering me. Criticisms of DeSantis ring hollow coming from those who feel such barely disguised glee at the idea of Disney getting its comeuppance.I think it's just schadenfreude. It's a head-versus-heart thing.
Somone might know in their heads that what DeSantis is doing is illegal, but emotionally their reaction still might be "lol get rekt Disney, I don't feel bad for you."
Fundamentally speaking, anytime you alienate even a small portion of your customers, it is bad for the bottom line. I do not reside in Florida, so I have absolutely no skin in the game and I don't get a vote. But I am a Disney shareholder. I have no ability to exert any pressure on DeSantis as he doesn't represent me.The company taking a political position has nothing to do with the fiduciary duties of the shareholders. You don’t like the position they took so you are implying it hurt business. Someone else who likes the position they took may have felt that not speaking out would have hurt business. Management of the company has to decide how to run the company. You may not like their decisions but that doesn’t mean they breached their fiduciary duties. People act like the company stopped doing business to focus on this situation but that’s the furthest thing from the truth.
I can’t say I’m entirely sure. My sense is that it’s a third party who serves as a go-between between board members. So, for instance, if Person A is on a board and wants to tell Person B her position on an upcoming issue without going public, Person A might have Person C — who’s not on the board — send the message to Person B. My sense is that, in that case, Person C is being a conduit.Explain what you mean by a "conduit"?
I saw something that Jim Korkis wrote last year when all this started.
Can anyone confirm this has been the case for all of the bills that passed?
I can’t say I’m entirely sure. My sense is that it’s a third party who serves as a go-between between board members. So, for instance, if Person A is on a board and wants to tell Person B her position on an upcoming issue without going public, Person A might have Person C — who’s not on the board — send the message to Person B. My sense is that, in that case, Person C is being a conduit.
Fundamentally speaking, anytime you alienate even a small portion of your customers, it is bad for the bottom line. I do not reside in Florida, so I have absolutely no skin in the game and I don't get a vote. But I am a Disney shareholder. I have no ability to exert any pressure on DeSantis as he doesn't represent me.
For instance, if Disney had come out and said they were banning anyone over the age of 60 from the parks or state that homosexuals were wrong, I'd be just as irritated with the company.
Query - Are Disney and Desantis friends?
Could be wrong, I thought it was Senate Bill 4-C from 2022.Does anyone remember the number of the bill that came out of the 1st special session that abolished RCID effective June 2023.
Could be wrong, I thought it was Senate Bill 4-C from 2022.
Does anyone remember the number of the bill that came out of the 1st special session that abolished RCID effective June 2023.
Already uploaded and attached.I'm sure he does but if he doesn't, I do and he can hotlink 'em.
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.