Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

annoyingrelative t1_ixbd5c1 wrote

Chapek was supposed to introduce Elton John last night, but cancelled during the afternoon.

Per the Article, news of the firing spread among the crowd just before it started, and Chapek's top lieutenant, Kareem Daniel left before the show began

Chapek famously screwed up the "Dont Say Gay" Florida fight with DeSantis, and implied Adults/Parents don't watch the Animated shows and movies on Disney+, they prefer Live action movies.

Chapek was a retail guy, not a good Parks guy. He kept cutting costs while raising prices and limiting passes. He was one of the most unpopular CEOs in their history, his firing has been celebrated on several Disney fan YouTube channels, videos were made minutes after the news dropped.

Robert Iger is a popular guy and rightly celebrated by Disney fans, but this is mostly a huge repudiation of Bob Chapek

349

DeckardPain t1_ixblcaz wrote

Will be interesting to see if they revert anything Chapek did, like the limitations on the passes, or if they’ll see it as more revenue and keep it as is. My bet is the latter of the two.

101

laststance t1_ixbnvj7 wrote

Doubt it, if you listen to Disney's investor calls they love that they're getting more spending per park guest while also having the highest park attendant numbers in a long time.

Chapek became CEO due to his ability to raise park prices and increase Disney's books for quite a while. He actually made those increases while under Iger. So Iger's run and as CEO and increased profits/books were in large part due to Chapek. It's why the board voted Chapek as CEO instead of the person Iger groomed.

80

MartinRaccoon t1_ixbv53d wrote

The guy who Iger groomed, Tom Skaggs, just disappeared one day. I always wondered what happened there

38

throwaway12junk t1_ixbz1rv wrote

Staggs has claimed he couldn't get the Board to guarantee the position of CEO in writing, so he left not wanting to face the possibility of being passed over.

Personally, I think Staggs saw opportunities elsewhere and weighed his choices. Currently he's the owner of an $2 billion investment fund, so he's certainly doing well for himself.

58

DisneyDreams7 t1_ixcmktr wrote

Kevin Mayer a.k.a. Buzz Lightyear who was the other heir to be CEO, is now the CEO of TikTok. So Ex-Disney CEOs seem to find lots of success

12

3758232352 t1_ixdlicl wrote

No he’s not. Mayer was CEO of TikTok for mere months before stepping down. Mayer and Staggs run the fund mentioned above together, and Mayer is also advising WB/Discovery.

8

ObiTate t1_ixf10l4 wrote

> So Ex-Disney CEOs seem to find lots of success

Tell that to Iger

1

thethurstonhowell t1_ixcea2m wrote

The board tried to get him to take the CEO role before they renewed Chapek’s contract over the summer and he declined. As reported by the NYT.

Disney could easily afford to buy Candle Media to bring Skaggs and Mayer back into the fold.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/21/business/media/disney-bob-iger.html

8

3758232352 t1_ixdm30m wrote

I’d bet Iger holds off on buying Candle Media for a little bit, because they’re almost certainly going to acquire more production companies in the next year.

1

thethurstonhowell t1_ixdo1dx wrote

Unless he’s realized he hates retirement and is gonna die there, he needs an actual succession plan this time and he’s only got 2 years to do it.

1

3758232352 t1_ixdubbe wrote

Definitely. Which is why you bring back Mayer and Staggs IMO. Talk it out, one of them can be CEO and the other COO. Pay them both well, and give them the areas they want.

5

thethurstonhowell t1_ixdvb1m wrote

They’re going to want it to be via an acquisition though. They’ve got a good thing going and aren’t going to walk away from it.

NYT also reported this is why they said no over the summer.

3

preppytarg t1_ixco2dr wrote

> It's why the board voted Chapek as CEO instead of the person Iger groomed.

I mean all these articles are saying Iger picked Chapek...

1

Allassnofakes t1_ixc5khm wrote

Coke introduces new coke, everyone hates it, brings back coke classic no one questions fundamental flaws in the classic.

23

MexusRex t1_ixg50b5 wrote

Same with Reddit and Ellen Pao/Steve Huffman

0

thenoblitt t1_ixbow0v wrote

He's already made changes on the Disney plus side

4

Raptorman_Mayho t1_ixc7hpb wrote

Lilly the latter as in fucking all that will take a lot of effort and Igor should only be temporary (as he was supposed to retire) so I guess it'll just be 'don't let anything get worse and actually shape a decent replacement'

2

low-ki199999 t1_ixcrf1f wrote

Do not expect DisneyWorld to suddenly become affordable. There’s a reason that youd rather go to Disney than Six Flags, and a big part of that has to do with the prices being so high. People are less likely to fuck around when the ticket cost another mortgage on the house. It’s never been about how much money that can make off the parks, it’s about keeping the “riffraff” out

2

Sprinkle_Puff t1_ixbr87l wrote

How did he mess us the “Don’t say gay” fight? Just asking out of curiosity. Not fighting harder, or getting involved at all in the first place?

11

MPUtf8Nzvh6kzhKq t1_ixcgadw wrote

>Not fighting harder, or getting involved at all in the first place?

In a way, from a cynical business perspective, both. He needed to either not get involved at all, which would have preserved relations with Florida and conservatives at the cost of angering creatives in the company and progressives more generally, or needed to respond harder, earlier, more publicly, which would have angered Florida and conservatives but preserved relations with creatives and progressives.

Instead he oversaw a response that both did too little, too late to avoid the repercussions of angering creatives and company morale, and too much, when he did do something, to avoid the repercussions of angering Florida and conservative governments.

He managed to take a situation where he was unavoidably going to anger one important group out of two, and chose the response that angered both.

43

iamgarron t1_ixbqabi wrote

Its been mentioned in a few pods but I think Iger wanted to fix it so that it isn't a stain on his legacy either. Chapek was his handpicked successor

−4

Eph_the_Beef t1_ixc3559 wrote

I don't believe that's true. Iger's handpicked successor was passed over for Chapek.

19

iamgarron t1_ixcdtho wrote

Tinseltown podcast, as well as Andy Greenwald, Chris Ryan and Bill Simmons (and a bunch of stuff online) have an described him as handpicked successor

−1

welchplug t1_ixc3e9o wrote

>Chapek was his handpicked successo

nope

6

Whites11783 t1_ixceu6a wrote

I mean, “handpicked” in that by the time he retired all the other possible successors (like Staggs) had left, so there was just Chapek.

6

Vitaloss t1_ixb40ow wrote

Everyday I wish for the death of corporate America

339

ILoveRegenHealth t1_ixe6jwr wrote

> Everyday I wish for the death of corporate America

Who makes your clothes, your TV shows, the chair you sit on, the company that manufactures the heating system in your house, your car, the beams that hold up your house? Some small local mom & pop shop?

3

assessmentdeterred t1_ixeeab0 wrote

"WE SHOULD IMPROVE SOCIETY SOMEWHAT"

"AND YET YOU PARTICIPATE IN SOCIETY, CURIOUS!"

−6

ILoveRegenHealth t1_ixeesyr wrote

>"WE SHOULD IMPROVE SOCIETY SOMEWHAT" = destroy/abolish all Corporations (which is what he said)

Curious you don't know the meaning of words. Curious.

I'm all for better legislation to stop loopholes and rampant corporate abuse. But he didn't say that. He said all corporations should die, typing that on his laptop and sitting in a chair manufactured by corporations, using electricity and eating his Cup O Noodle that were all given to him by corporations.

I don't mind someone listing problems, but when they are so comically impossible and offer zero solutions, who the fuck is upvoting that guy? Fornite teens?

9

assessmentdeterred t1_ixeot08 wrote

Why are you so fervently defending billionaires my dude? They definitely don't need it.

Again, the substance of your response boils down to 'he's a hypocrite for criticising a system and participating in it'. But it's been said before, and will continue to remain true: there is no ethical consumption under capitalism.

By the way, this is the internet where people (yourself included) tend to speak in hyperbole. Since I understand that and agree with the sentiment driving it, I'm more than happy to upvote his comment. And I'm not particularly good at fortnite, nor close to being a teenager.

−2

ILoveRegenHealth t1_ixfgaap wrote

> Why are you so fervently defending billionaires my dude? They definitely don't need it.

Dude, are you dense. I am Liberal and FOR taxing billionaires hard. Been saying it forever. Elon Musk makes me sick (he's obviously messing with Twitter to get Republicans into office so he can pay less taxes) and so do many corporate vultures.

What I take issue with is that guy's simplistically childist post: "Corporations need to die" and he gets upvoted. No thought was put behind his post and his post doesn't even make sense (it would not work). Feel free to move to a poor and dangerous third world country with authoritarian control and you'll have your wish. Otherwise, living in the US or most 1st world countries and enjoying the safeties and luxuries compared to other hellholes, then saying "Corporations need to all die" sounds like a goofball who has absolutely know idea how capitalism/economies work, and is just typing shit to sound cool.

We can make laws to help better regulate corporations and hold them accountable and to better prevent their predatory practices, and to give their workers better wages and rights. Nowhere did I say to let up on that (if anything we need to do way more of all of that), and some massive companies do need to be broken up. But to say capitalism can exist without any corporations is a stupid post. What are you even arguing?

3

Surly_Whalepoker t1_ixewkgs wrote

If you base your argument on the idea that capitalism and corporations are inherently immoral, then make zero effort to combat that in your daily life and reap the benefits of capitalism, you are inherently a hypocrite no matter what a webcomic says.

Progressives should try using real arguments instead of moral platitudes. They're much more effective.

2

assessmentdeterred t1_ixezw9j wrote

Again, participating in a system does not imply universal endorsement. Nor do you have any idea what efforts the original commenter (or myself) are taking to combat it daily.

−1

kevindurant t1_ixb73vj wrote

What's your favorite tv show?

−52

Darth_Jason t1_ixbbhpo wrote

The one where they show that guy being both a manipulative jerk and a bumbling moron, until

SHE

shows him (and us!) how it should have been done all along.

17

Couldnotbehelpd t1_ixbkji0 wrote

I’m sorry, do you exclusively watch failed sitcoms from 2002 or what?

24

kevindurant t1_ixbfyol wrote

If your point is that's every story on TV then you should broaden your horizons

18

[deleted] t1_ixb4wxu wrote

[deleted]

−139

Vitaloss t1_ixb5x1k wrote

A society that cares for its fellow man rather than throw them in the trash. A society that doesn’t destroy food to maintain an artificial price point. A society that is equal despite being founded in inequality. A society where a city in a water crisis actually receives help in a timely manner. A society where prison is for rehabilitation and not a slave labor force. A society that has a parole system not built to funnel Ex-Cons back into the system. A society that favors the needs of the many over the needs of a few rich assholes. It can be better

116

C1xed t1_ixdlx3a wrote

> A society that cares for its fellow man

Stopped reading there.

People on Reddit (esp. leftists) love to wax poetic about loving their fellow man, and then turn right around and undermine each other for not being as ideologically pure as they are. It's a load of bullshit. Sure, you might care about other people whose opinions you agree with, but as soon as they stray off that path, you're dead to them just like everyone else outside the bubble.

−3

tidho t1_ixbq387 wrote

like they said, you want Communism

there are places you can go to be part of that, you don't need to wish ill on the rest of us.

−72

HearseWithNoName t1_ixbzgbe wrote

It's narrow minded people like you that keep us from having a true and equal democracy

32

tidho t1_ixcw2ap wrote

I'm all for equal opportunity and we're damn close to it already. happy to support closing any remaining gaps.

−1

tmoney144 t1_ixbn060 wrote

You don't need corporations to have capitalism.

11

Budgiesaurus t1_ixbpebd wrote

Maybe not need, but they make sense in capitalism.

If the system is set up to maximise profits, accumulate capital, market competition etc. pretty soon someone will come up with a corporation or something very similar as the most effective way to squeeze every penny out of the market.

5

tmoney144 t1_ixbx58c wrote

The point I was trying to make is that there are levels between thinking "corporate America" has too much power and literal communism. We could not have corporations at all and still not be communist.

6

Budgiesaurus t1_ixbyd2d wrote

I agree, corporates should lose a lot of power and influence, and I don't know a proper alternative for capitalism. I don't see communism working. But I also don't see a capitalist system that won't lead to corporations.

But proper taxation of corporations and stronger anti trust legislation might be a good start.

1

tidho t1_ixbq953 wrote

thus creating efficiency and the highest standard of living in human history

−12

Budgiesaurus t1_ixbu6i6 wrote

Up to a point. Countries that counteract the worst tendancies of capitalism with limits, taxation and social policies tend to have a higher standard of living than those that are more laissez-faire.

And just because we haven't found a working system that's better than capitalism doesn't mean there isn't a lot of issues with it. But the attempts at communism and the like broke down when humans were introduced, so far.

Capitalism raises a lot of wealth, but tends to concentrate it for a very very small group.

6

tidho t1_ixd0pjz wrote

you're talking about capitalism with more redistribution, versus capitalism with less redistribution. it's still capitalism creating the highest standard of living in human history.

Communism was bad theory before the industrial revolution of the early 1900's, it's simply idiotic now. Fortunately, as has been the case for a century, the college kids will figure that out around age 25.

Every economic system concentrates wealth - you don't think the oligarchs running your utopia will be living the high life?

1

Budgiesaurus t1_ixd8uvj wrote

I'm not sure what strawman you are fighting here. I'm not advocating for communism, as I don't see it working at all.

I'm just saying capitalism has a lot of issues, and you're seriously delusional if you don't see any.

But I'm not advocating for any alternative here, as I don't know a better system. Doesn't mean I can't have criticism or suggest it can be improved.

0

tidho t1_ixdad4t wrote

> I'm just saying capitalism has a lot of issues, and you're seriously delusional if you don't see any.

if the problems you're saying capitalism has also exist in every other economic system then it's not really a 'capitalism problem'. that's the point.

things like wealth disparity (to the extent that's even a problem, hint: it's not) will exist in every economic system. communism was theory intended to eliminate it, yet reality has proven it does not.

2

ibetthisistaken5190 t1_ixbyi3z wrote

Let’s all high five because whoever gets the most money before they die, wins. And what good is it then?

An entire life spent chasing after something that’s ultimately meaningless. Bravo.

3

tidho t1_ixcvvk4 wrote

that's a personal choice, not some burden from the current economic system

2

BaphometsTits t1_ixbx80i wrote

>You don't need corporations to have capitalism.

Yes, limited liability companies work too.

5

ILoveRegenHealth t1_ixe6quq wrote

okay point to a country that has successful capitalism with no corporations?

You sound like a kid trying to be edgy.

1

tmoney144 t1_ixe9hyj wrote

You sound like someone who doesn't know history. The US had capitalism with little to no corporations until New Jersey and Delaware changed their laws in the 1890s. That's why most companies are incorporated in Delaware, because they were the first to allow it (New Jersey was actually first by a few years but shortly after repealed the laws).

1

ChiifChokah0 t1_ixbmuqh wrote

Hey look another dumb dumb throwing words he doesn’t understand around.. if we had a nickel..

4

SpuzzLovely t1_ixbbd7v wrote

Bring back Dave the Barbarian you cowards

75

HarlesD t1_ixbip5c wrote

Save the Owl House while we're at it.

39

kronosdev t1_ixcijug wrote

The Owl House is done. Dana’s next project is probably going to have much more secure footing though.

11

aw-un t1_ixbh21t wrote

Or at the very least, make the original run available on Disney+

7

Radulno t1_ixbsgui wrote

I feel like people are praising Iger a little too much. A lot of the stuff we have now come directly from his tenure to be honest. Considering the time to make a project, pretty much all shows and movies have been started under him (hell for most he is even the one that announced it at that Investor Day when they launched Disney+). Also his track record is far from perfect, he is mostly responsible for the state of Star Wars for example, his last big movie was The Rise of Skywalker and he launched all the show projects. Ironically something like Andor maybe wouldn't have been done the same under him as apparently, he doesn't want content too adult on Disney+.

He also actually chose Chapek as CEO knowing how he works (he was the boss of the parks division and had a reputation there)

Considering Chapek was only there 2 years (including a big part of that where the entire comapny was basically frozen with no parks, no cruise, no production, no theaters), it's not like he had the time to do much. The little he did didn't look good though.

41

katievspredator t1_ixcvrqo wrote

He consistently showed in interviews he has no idea why people actually like the Disney parks. He said 99% people come to the parks for the great cast members (who they underpay and treat like garbage) based on letters he received from guests. So he took that and ran with it and cut everything from the parks people enjoyed and then put the onus on the staff to keep people happy in the parks

8

swmill08 t1_ixcdsri wrote

How dare you come in here with an unbiased opinion

2

dreamerkid001 t1_ixb3f05 wrote

How dare they use my favorite song of all time in a tabloid headline.

37

sickfuck3000 t1_ixb51b7 wrote

They probably used it because Elton John's new concert streamed on Disney+ and the news broke out during the event.

9

BlearySteve t1_ixbofbu wrote

No, rehiring the dude who is largely responsible for the current state of Disney is not saving it.

21

FawkesFire13 t1_ixbpccz wrote

I’m still stunned by the swiftness that everything took place but very happy for the future.

20

Radulno t1_ixbsnmt wrote

I mean switftness we knew of, those are private discussions we don't know about that have probably been going on for a long time

6

DavidNexus7 t1_ixcb3ji wrote

Look at the stock price YTD and his comments on the earnings call. The board decided probably 5 min after it ended he’s gone.

5

JimileeWatt t1_ixbqzh1 wrote

Disneys marketing really wants us to be happy this guys back huh?

16

Chrome-Head t1_ixcc0mg wrote

Jesus, he’s just a dude.

People’s white collar worship in this country has reached full-on dementia. It’s like we as Americans deeply desire our own Monarchy.

15

caarlos29 t1_ixcfvag wrote

Hes just a dude that runs one of the biggest if not the biggest entertainment company in the world. People are happy to see him back as ceo because Chapek sucked. Nobody is worshipping

10

BigfootsBestBud t1_ixcix8c wrote

Dude calm down. He comes off as a charming likable guy, the other guy didn't. People were happy with this guys decisions, they weren't happy with the other guys.

Therefore they are happy he's back. It isn't that deep.

5

SDLRob t1_ixcjnzf wrote

it was a stunning return as no one was expecting it... and he's replacing someone who'd caused a fair amount of damage to the Disney brand (and the offshoots). So yeah... he may be able to reverse that damage and prevent Disney from continuing down the road Chapek was bumbling along.

​

And with the sheer amount of people directly and indirectly who's job depends on a strong Disney brand... it's a good thing.

5

FuckThisPostTruthEra t1_ixcijow wrote

How dare people comment on a thread about a dude who is gonna influence the content in said thread!

4

Kakarot_faps t1_ixdk919 wrote

Disney is a huge part of the culture and Star Wars+ marvel are the biggest brands in the country (or at least were a few years ago). They’re literally the McDonald’s of entertainment. This isn’t white collar worship as much as enjoying the creative forces around it. People wouldn’t give a shit about the CEO of chase bank or Kroger for a reason.

2

jimsmisc t1_ixd8ycf wrote

Was listening to a podcast the other day where someone pointed out that having a monarchy like the one in Britain actually helps prevent this kind of worship of ultra rich (often morally bankrupt) captains of industry. The monarchy can represent the nation without necessarily having to back a particular political party or agenda. And since people do seem to want that kind of figurehead, the argument was that it's better to have a British-style king/queen than to worship whichever capitalist emerges victorious at a given moment.

−2

Cash907 t1_ixbuyfw wrote

Uh… do people forget Iger is the one that set Disney down the twisted path Chapek continued? Why are people celebrating this? Disney is clearly F’d and desperate, and things are about to get much worse before they maybe get better.

10

QuoteGiver t1_ixcfrmm wrote

Depends which path you’re talking about and why you think it’s “twisted”? Plenty of perfectly happy Disney fans out there; keep getting very popular movies and TV shows, the parks have continued building popular new attractions, etc.

3

ObiTate t1_ixf1kao wrote

>Plenty of perfectly happy Disney fans out there

Mental illness

0

DentMasterson t1_ixcp7w0 wrote

After a small bump, Iger continues Disney's downward spiral. He was it's architect, he might as well put the last nail in

5

Jorycle t1_ixczw70 wrote

I'm a huge fan of the move back from Chapek to Iger, but I feel like all of these articles really show how weirdly broken capitalism and our views of corporate wealth are.

Talking about Disney like they were a failing company about to go under. One article before the ouster cried about how to "salvage" Disney - a company that still made a massive profit to the tune of over 3 billion dollars year over year. When anyone refers to losses with this company, they're specifically referring to one segment - which was covered by the other divisions of the company, and even part of the long term plan when they created this division. They saw company revenue grow by 20%, it just wasn't as much growth as they expected. They still made a shit ton of profit.

This is the case with 90% of earnings report news. The US reports corporations' "we didn't make as much money as we wanted" as devastating losses despite being hugely profitable. We recognize this as lunacy in any other form - private small businesses are considered successful if they make even one dime of profit after expenses. You're doing well if you make one dime of money to put in your savings after paying bills and debt.

Fix the US's weird borderline distopian view of corporations.

3

Vidogo t1_ixe1703 wrote

this. it's not that the company is failing or that that they're losing money. they still made billions in profit. just lower profit than they and the analysts expected

the numbers still went up, they just didn't go up steeply enough and... that's a crisis, apparently.

1

NopeItsDolan t1_ixck3es wrote

Fun fact: Walt Disney’s father was an ardent socialist.

2

MulciberTenebras t1_ixf749q wrote

The father that use to beat the shit out of him and his brother when they were kids?

Yeah... no wonder Walt hated labor rights and ratted out people to HUAC.

3

monchota t1_ixcnw8l wrote

Its was simple math, they had a investor meeting. They were projected to be down 40% and he was fired.

1

mild-hot-fire t1_ixf90nh wrote

I’m okay with letting Disney fizzle into obscurity

1

The_Greyarch t1_ixca5sr wrote

So they replaced Iger with Chapek because he was dragging the company down with his bad policies, and now they're replacing Chapek for the same reasons with the guy who was the reason for why Chapek was installed as CEO in the first place... OK.

0

MulciberTenebras t1_ixf79r5 wrote

No, Iger wanted to retire... but he didn't name a successor so the board just shoved Chapek into the seat for being a good money maker. Then he stopped being good at it, and kept throwing them into PR nightmare after PR nightmare.

2

Educational-Tower t1_ixcamh2 wrote

Chapek did at least try to withdraw Disney from divisive political issues. That was very smart. The company exists to satisfy its consumers and make money, not act as a platform for the political enthusiasms/activism of its staff. Meanwhile some current issues, not least the unsatisfactory performance of Star Wars since 2012 and recently the over-saturation of Marvel content in order to populate the new streaming service, are decisions that date back to Iger, not Chapek. Overall Chapek was a definite failure - the Black Widow salary scandal - but he inherited a problematic situation from Iger.

−1

YouAreInsufferable t1_ixckcs0 wrote

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

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

0

Educational-Tower t1_ixco526 wrote

Well it depends what is meant by ”‘inclusive“. If it means pushing a particular agenda/worldview that lands the company in public controversy and quite possibly alienates many parents, it’s probably an unwise idea.

1

YouAreInsufferable t1_ixcolq1 wrote

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

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

0

Educational-Tower t1_ixcp1aq wrote

Well the fact that Disney employees wanted the company to pick a fight with elected lawmakers in service of their enthusiasms underscores that this isn’t as simple as you imply.

2

YouAreInsufferable t1_ixcpynq wrote

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

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

0

Educational-Tower t1_ixcq91k wrote

Disney employees didn’t kick up a fuss when the company was partnering with an agency of the Chinese state currently engaged in genocide. I find their posturing about a policy issue in democratic Floria nauseatingly hypocritical. And anyway “the right thing” is a matter of debate.

5

YouAreInsufferable t1_ixcvkcz wrote

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

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

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

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

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

And yet we should still try to do it.

1

Educational-Tower t1_ixcwczf wrote

If they want us to take them seriously, they had better show consistency. And in terms of “evils” the two are not remotely comparable. You mentioned about “promoting” issues. Surely it is easy to see that lots of people, customers, vehemently disagree with the political stance of the employees, don’t consider it “the right thing”, in fact quite the opposite, and hence it is unwise for a company to engage in activism that attacks the beliefs of those people - particularly related to parenting and children.

4

YouAreInsufferable t1_ixddkm6 wrote

Do you believe companies should ever engage in corporate activism? What do you think of Mike Lindell?

Many people have held an Intolerant view, but we see that this group of people is dwindling every year. Pandering to bigots is hypocritical and they should try to reduce that as much as possible. It's pragmatic and moral to oppose intolerance.

Furthermore, Disney is a huge donor for both parties and is a big economic contributor for the state. FL wants Disney to be happy.

0

Educational-Tower t1_ixdiod8 wrote

https://thefederalist.com/2022/11/22/disney-needs-to-get-rid-of-more-than-its-ceo/

This kind of activism is extremely controversial and smearing everyone who disagrees as a bigot is ridiculously immature. For a major corporation that makes most of its money from families, it is verging on the moronic.

0

turkeygobblegobblr t1_ixeaxvq wrote

It isn’t smearing bigots to call them bigots. Trash people are trash.

2

Educational-Tower t1_ixebgj7 wrote

You mean the “trash people” who do not want sexual “agendas” (the gleeful word if one Disney insider) pushed onto prepubescent children? Those “bigots”?

0

turkeygobblegobblr t1_ixeechy wrote

Yes, exactly those bigots/trash people/detriments to our society.

1

Educational-Tower t1_ixef5r0 wrote

OK. Thanks. So to be clear, in your view the heroes here are the people pushing adult sexual themes onto prepubescent children?

0

turkeygobblegobblr t1_ixegnsy wrote

Given no one’s doing that, the heroes are the people pushing diversity and the dregs of society are the people calling that “pushing adult sexual themes into prepubescent children.”

2

YouAreInsufferable t1_ixdkbcy wrote

It is bigotry. Why are you acting like they're opposed to families? Also, stopped reading here:

"If Disney wants to reverse its decline into a child-grooming, genocide-tolerating propaganda machine, it needs to ditch more than Bob Chapek".

Seriously? You believe this shit? That's truly moronic...

Where is the grooming? People seriously don't know what this word means anymore.

Edit: Updated with new knowledge.

1

Educational-Tower t1_ixdv4dz wrote

The systematic mass murder and sterilisation carried out by the CCP against its Muslim population is classifiable as genoicude. To say “where is it?” is a sign of a non-existent moral compass. You are simply not worth speaking to.

0

YouAreInsufferable t1_ixdzuy1 wrote

My ignorance on which genocide the article is referring to =/= that I have no moral compass. That's just a logical fallacy.

Where are they grooming? Seriously, you can't answer a question the whole comment line and it shows that you can't engage in good faith. Then again, you do read the federalist, so honest communication is not something you're familiar with.

1

Educational-Tower t1_ixeb4ux wrote

You smear people as bigots. These people do not want a sexual “agenda” (the words of one gleeful Disney insider) pushed on prepubescent children. So those people are the problem? People who do not want sexual “agendas” consciously pushed on prepubescent children are the problem. Those pushing sexual content onto prepubescent children are doing (your words from above) “the right thing”. That’s not suspicious at all!

0

YouAreInsufferable t1_ixebe1i wrote

Let's follow it to its logical conclusion.

What is the agenda that you're talking about?

2

Educational-Tower t1_ixecajj wrote

Well see the words of Latoya Raveneu. Her words, not mine. This entails deliberately packing Disney content aimed at prepubescent children with a sexual agenda. Adults keen to expose prepubescent children to sexual material are inherently suspicious. Many of them will be predators.

0

YouAreInsufferable t1_ixecvb2 wrote

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

1

Educational-Tower t1_ixedmq6 wrote

I answered your question as best I could. Now let me pose one to you. Hopefully you will answer in kind. Let’s follow your own points to their “logical conclusion” this time. Why are you keen to expose prepubescent children to adult sexual themes?

1

YouAreInsufferable t1_ixedwic wrote

Well, you didn't quite finish; I promise to answer you afterwards.

Did I understand correctly in my above statement?

Edit: To speed it up: Is the inclusion of homosexual characters equivalent to a "sexual agenda" or "sexual themes" to you?

2

Educational-Tower t1_ixeewxb wrote

I’m quoting the words of Disney’s own employees who repeatedly described using characters to push sexual themes as part of an “agenda”. I’m clearly not making this up, the intent is clear and the wording their own - I am merely quoting. Over to you.

1

YouAreInsufferable t1_ixefgzc wrote

Yeah, their agenda is to insert gay characters into shows. I'm asking you if you consider that to be equivalent to sexual themes? You have not-in-so-many-words already stated such, but I wanted confirmation.

Do you consider them equivalent?

Or are you considering something entirely different when you say sexual themes? I'm legitimately trying to just understand your base position.

1

Educational-Tower t1_ixeg43p wrote

I’m not the one who used the word “agenda“. I’m quoting it. I’m still waiting for you to answer my question about you.

0

YouAreInsufferable t1_ixehyk9 wrote

I know you are quoting. I literally just addressed that.

I will answer your question:

  1. We accept that the inclusion of homosexual characters is equivalent to "sexual themes" as you're using it.

  2. We determine that heterosexual characters must also, therefore, meet the definition of "sexual themes".

  3. We determine that exposing children to the idea that same sex parents or different sex parents are both encompassing "sexual themes".

  4. We determine that the meaning of "sexual themes" has lost any useful value as you use it.

  5. We find it obvious that people do not want to expose children to anything sexually explicit.

  6. Sexually explicit content includes pornography or other simulated sexual intercourse.

Therefore, I do not think "sexual themes" is a meaningful statement in this context and is used as an emotional appeal to work around reason and logic. I think "sexual themes" is being used to specifically & unfairly target homosexuality, and is therefore bigotry by definition. Please correct if I've made any incorrect assumptions about your definition (which I was trying to get...).

2

Educational-Tower t1_ixekly9 wrote

Who is “We"?

And it is telling that where you draw the line at what prepubescent children might be exposed to is nothing less than outright hardcore pornography. Presumably things below that are fine in your mind. For prepubescent children. Sickening. You can talk about defending gay people all you like. This is still sickening and most gay people would, i am certain, agree.

Very convenient and disingenuous that specifically promoting a self-described agenda (not my phrase!) apparently does not = exposing adult sexual themes to prepubescent children. What? Hardly convincing and deeply concerning. You are convincing no-one.

You mention reason and logic. Why not just accept that adult themes are for adults and ought not to be specifically targeted at prepubescent children? If people are keen to reach prepubescent children with an adult sexual “agenda”, that is manipulative and predatory.

0

YouAreInsufferable t1_ixeoans wrote

>Who is “We"?

We is you and I accepting definitions.

>And it is telling that where you draw the line at what prepubescent children might be exposed to is nothing less than outright hardcore pornography.

Did I draw the line there? I'm afraid you misunderstood.

>Presumably things below that are fine in your mind.

Uh, what? No lol. That is a horrible assumption.

>Very convenient and disingenuous that specifically promoting a self-described agenda (not my phrase!) apparently does not = exposing adult sexual themes to prepubescent children. What? Hardly convincing and deeply concerning. You are convincing no-one.

You really do love emotional appeals. Let's try logic again. Do you agree with how I've characterized your definition of "sexual themes" as you've asked it? Do you find a flaw in the reasoning? If so, where explicitly?

>You mention reason and logic. Why not just accept that adult themes are for adults and ought not to be specifically targeted at prepubescent children?

I consider race equality to be an adult theme, but that doesn't mean I don't think children should be exposed to the idea that all races are equal. Most people would agree that representation is good. The same thing applies here.

>If people are keen to reach prepubescent children with an adult sexual “agenda”, that is manipulative and predatory.

Acceptance of others different than you is a good moral message. Exposure to others different than yourself is a good thing. Do you agree with these things?

Most of your arguments are emotional appeals based on an inciteful use of language. Where's the substance?

1

NotSoNiceO1 t1_ixcdz6x wrote

I am all for this if. Hope the price/passholder improve.

−2

[deleted] t1_ixbd67x wrote

[removed]

−61