OT: Disney related

[mcdawg22]

Typical non logical response to equate two things that are not but continue

I think the parallels are apt. One group of people pushed back against him because they thought his dancing was immoral. Another group pushed back because they felt the black influence was subversive to traditional white Christian values. Kind of what you see with Disney and their LGBTQ inclusion. I think the issue is, and I’ll admit this for me, same sex kisses or relationships stand out. Think about Marvel, literally all the Avengers are inferred or confirmed heterosexual. Quill is banging an alien, Wanda an Android. But when Endgame came out, all I heard was how Marvel shoehorned a gay couple in the therapy session. So after a dozen heterosexual relationships we get our first confirmed gay one. That’s not shoehorning that’s demographic representation.

 

[ckDOG]

Society collapse? That’s hyperbole. That wasn’t their concern. Further deterioration of morality was. And maybe it has. Or maybe their worry was really regret that it had already.

I’m not gonna argue Disney, but we got a lot of problems.

And this is not a holier than thou post. I’m part of the problem. And I’m a Disney+ subscriber.

Ah, yes. The folks maintaining the status quo in 1960 were surely solid guardians of morality.

 

[IBleedMaroonDawg]

Great take

Dude puts my thoughts together better than I do.

 

[Mobile Bay]

View attachment 265342

Song of the South (1946)

"We're headin' for the Laughin' Place!"

classiccinemaonline.com

 

[HailStout]

Those mickey waffles are the bomb, though

 

[TheStateUofMS]

Chapek out Iger back in. Shareholders tired of losing money. Pretty big deal. Chapek was not liked by many Disney fans. He was pretty tone deaf too from what I read and saw.

DIS better hold $90. I don't know what the quick fix is as long as their pouring money into streaming.

 

[mstateglfr]

Grooming/normalizing behavior/ teaching about sexual orientation take your pic. Normalizing behaviors in children's content is grooming them to think a certain way and normalizing that context. Like it or not lgqbt+ is still not normalized for many families across the world. But I think that is what the producers are trying to accomplish. Put as much in as possible to normalize/teach/groom those children to believe that way and that it's a normal way of life. That's a pretty obvious agenda of many producers. Parents have a right to disagree with that way of life and to not teach their kids that if they don't want to. And they have a right to unsubscribe just like a gay couple has the right to unsubscribe if they don't like straight content in children's movies. I think that is basically what people are saying. They are not letting their children watch that content or not going to Disney or not supporting them because of what the films are attempting to normalize

Ah, so 'grooming' is now just normalizing something you disagree with. This reminds me of the argument that activist judges are ones where the person doesn't like their ruling.
That isn't what grooming means and I would hope the poster who used the term knows this since it's such a hot button term and has been thrown around a good bit by political commentators recently.

Sure, complain that two women kissing one another in a Disney script is sexualizing a movie when a man and a woman kissing in the same context isn't. That's a laughable argument to make, but go ahead and make it.

But to actually get back to reality, what movies and shows are displaying these vile activities? There was that guy in the live action Beauty and the Beast, he voices Olaf, who played a gay character. And that Valkaryie woman from Thor was gay. I seriously struggle to think of who else. Thats how little impact 'the gay agenda' at Disney has had on me over the last 5 years.

Mountain molehill.

 

[mcdawg22]

Ah, yes. The folks maintaining the status quo in 1960 were surely solid guardians of morality.

Is that when Jerry Lee Lewis was actually grooming his 13 year old cousin.

 

[Trojanbulldog19]

Since this is difficult for some. Yes groom. To prepare. To indoctrinate. To instruct. To educate. To train.

it is the objective of those executives and producers to indoctrinate, train, educate.

 

[turkish]

Maybe it has.

Ah, yes. The folks maintaining the status quo in 1960 were surely solid guardians of morality.

So the 1960ers were objectively less morally intact than you?

eta: those afeared of twerkin, I mean.

 

[HammerOfTheDogs]

It's not about Trump. Republican conservatism has always had a strong lean towards bull crap and hucksterism. Tax cuts for rich people is Ivermectin for the economy. Guns guns guns is ivermectin for gun policy. Build the wall was ivermectin for immigration policy. Trump just cultivated it, and now it has metastasized. If you think it's going to go with him, you are mistaken. It has taken over, Kevin McCarthy is busy proving that right now.

Your trigger word is "Ivetmectin"

 

[ckDOG]

So the 1960ers were objectively less morally intact than you?

eta: those afeared of twerkin, I mean.

How would I know? I wasn't alive then. Fair odds I would have thought as ignorantly as they did as we tend to be in heavily influenced by our environment and circumstance.

That said, with hindsight I can objectively say that the folks of that era overly concerned with the status quo and worrying about society's imminent downfall were the same people that were clearly in the on the wrong side of morality and history. I can't help but be skeptical when people today ***** about this, that, they, or those being the next thing that brings it all down.

 

[mstateglfr]

View attachment 265629

View attachment 265630
Since this is difficult for some. Yes groom. To prepare. To indoctrinate. To instruct. To educate. To train.

it is the objective of those executives and producers to indoctrinate, train, educate.

It's a well known term for how an individual will target a child and work to bring themselves into the child's life with the intert to sexually abuse the child.

 

[turkish]

So the 1960ers were objectively less moral than you?

How would I know? I wasn't alive then. Fair odds I would have thought as ignorantly as they did as we tend to be in heavily influenced by our environment and circumstance.

That said, with hindsight I can objectively say that the folks of that era overly concerned with the status quo and worrying about society's imminent downfall were the same people that were clearly in the on the wrong side of morality and history. I can't help but be skeptical when people today ***** about this, that, they, or those being the next thing that brings it all down.

See, to me, you sound as hypersensitive as those you decry. You think because a group disagrees with something, they’re accusing it of ‘destroying society.’ You’re disrespecting a mountain of nuance.

Complaining about complaining, I suppose.

 

[ckDOG]

See, to me, you sound as hypersensitive as those you decry. You think because a group disagrees with something, they’re accusing it of ‘destroying society.’ You’re disrespecting a mountain of nuance.

Complaining about complaining, I suppose.

Stick with deterioration of morality if that's your preference. Point being...many, if not most, of the folks of that era getting in a hissy about the younger generations and their deterioration of morality had no higher moral ground to stand on.

Nothing new under the sun. It happened then. It happened before. It's happening now. Just comes with the territory of people with stability and who most contribute to the status quo. They have the most to lose and become uneasy when the next generation matures and has their own quirks, virtues, and vices. I'll probably do it as I hit my 50s and beyond and am ready retire and be a grumpy old man set in my familiar and comfortable ways.

 

[dog12]

full-on lesbian scissoring between two princesses

Whoa . . . hold up.

Now I'm listening.

 

[The Cooterpoot]

 

[Bulldog Bruce]

You can see the warning Disney displays when going to watch the grand opening of Its a Small World ride for yourself on Disney+. You can't tell me that any of that warning is true. They have kids from all over the world dressed in their native culture costumes. How else would you represent people of the world in a 15 minute boat ride if you don't pick things from their culture to make you recognize they are from Africa or France or Switzerland or India. No representations are representing subjugated peolpe within the ride. All the kids are dancing and happy and celebrating all the cultures. Then there is that silly song drumming into your brain

It's a world of laughter
A world of tears
It's a world of hopes
And a world of fears
There's so much that we share
That it's time we're aware
It's a small world after all
It's a small world after all
It's a small world after all
It's a small world after all
It's a small, small world
There is just one moon
And one golden sun
And a smile means
Friendship to ev'ryone
Though the mountains divide
And the oceans are wide
It's a small world after all
It's a small world after all
It's a small world after all
It's a small world after all
It's a small, small world

We hear about cultural appropriation all the time. How can you have cultural appropriation, if cultures aren't different? We have discussions today about how a person feels decides their gender. Problem with that is there is no one way a woman feels or one way a man feels. All these feelings rely on a stereotype of how you think a woman or a man should feel. This whole ride was designed to bring people together everywhere despite differences. There was nothing wrong then and nothing wrong now with It's a Small World. And if the people that run the Disney channel thinks there is, that is a problem.

 

[jethreauxdawg]

Hey Bruce, but if we focus on the things we have in common and unite people, how are we supposed to drum up support for our side?

 

[Mr Todd French]

We spent over $10k on our trip in 2021 (flew direct out of Nashville). We were there for 7 nights.

Did similar trips in 2015 and 2018 for about $6-7k. I track every dollar we spend on vacations - it was over a 60% increase from the previous trips for basically the same thing. One of my kids was 11 this last time... so technically he was an adult. There's nothing worse than paying $30+ on a breakfast buffet for him to eat a piece of bacon and half a waffle. But that was really the only difference

Going to Disneyland in 2023. After that, I think my family will be done with the big Disney trips.

 

[Mr Todd French]

Well I’m about to set out on day 2. It’s packed here and not cheap. Beer opens at Animal Kingdom at 10 I think.

 

[UpTheMiddlex3Punt]

 

[johnson86-1]

The link you provided is from an incident nearly 3 decades ago. The director was dangerous back then and Disney didnt handle the incident well. To be clear, the Disney movie your link mentions wasnt about grooming or sexualization. It was about some powdery guy with telekinesis(sp?) or some electric power.
So that Disney movie doesnt have grooming or inappropriate sexualization of characters.

And Florida's(DeSantis') law was largely a non-issue to begin with. Its the squeaky wheel syndrome. But regardless of if it was needed or not as a law, that is aside from what I have posted about here. I initially asked for examples of grooming and sexualization in movies, so DeSantis' law has nothing to do with this.
So far, I have heard that same gendered people kissing is something a poster doesnt want to have to deal with discussing as a parent.
Um...well Ok, but everyone else in the world will keep living in reality where it is well known that gay people exist. That just isnt sexualizing content and it isnt grooming.

As for the 50% of characters being LGBTQIA+ or underrepresented groups, I think this has been happening for the last 15 years and is now increasing. Underrepresented means racial minority and there have been more characters of color and heritage in the last 6 years especially than probably the previous 60. On a related note, I have seen the video of the Exec who has 2 ***** kids- she talks about being surprised at underrepresentation and then says something about her crying being 50% of the tears. I havent seen video of an exec actually making the declaration. I mention this only because its odd to me, since the news was so big earlier this year.

So it sounds like you and others just really dislike decisions Disney has made as they relate to inclusivity and equality. You all want less representation and for everyone to not talk about gender or sexuality.
I am here to let you know that a 5 year old can handle knowing that a man can love a man. Its quite simple. One of my kids had friends in preschool with 2 moms. We told her it exists and she moved on quite quickly. Like, couldnt care less. Processed the info and then played like normal. It just isnt a big deal and kids all know it exists, unless they have been sheltered for some odd reason, which then why show them anything Disney?

Again, the insistence on being obtuse. First, nobody here has accepted your limitation that only grooming and sexualization in movies counts. I think normal people would be more concerned about threatening to withhold money from politicians that tried to prohibit certain grooming activities in elementary school. And most people that aren't so 17ing blinded by their partisanship would not look at a story about a child molester being hired to direct a movie with children on staff and say, "well the movie wasn't about child molestation, what's the harm?" The point was that even before Disney execs openly got on board with this weird child sexualization thing, they were typical Hollywood in that they thought child molestation was just something that happens and you have to overlook sometimes. And doing a racial box checking is fine I guess (other than apparently taking the place of actual creativity and strong writing in too many instances), but it's not logical to bundle racial representation and LGBTQDGUIOW#$R!!+ reporesentation in the context of a 50% goal. They're not the same thing and it makes zero sense to lump them together. 39% of the US is non-white, less than 1% of the population is trans. IF you're going to do the box checking without a weird child sexualation thing, the logical thing to do would be to say we're going to have X% of characters be non-white (x being determined by whether you are looking at US or world population; if you're looking at world) and we're going to have y% of characters being LGBTQ whatever. You wouldn't say, "well, we need to hit 50% here, do we want Mulan to be non-white or do we want her to be LBGTQ?" They're just not interchangeable.

And again, people want to not discuss sexuality in children's movies. As you note, there are plenty of opportunities for parents to address sexuality in real life. Disney doesn't need to manufacture it in movies in elementary schools or fight in favor of elementary teachers being able to discuss sexuality with their students.

 

[mstateglfr]

Again, the insistence on being obtuse. First, nobody here has accepted your limitation that only grooming and sexualization in movies counts. I think normal people would be more concerned about threatening to withhold money from politicians that tried to prohibit certain grooming activities in elementary school. And most people that aren't so 17ing blinded by their partisanship would not look at a story about a child molester being hired to direct a movie with children on staff and say, "well the movie wasn't about child molestation, what's the harm?" The point was that even before Disney execs openly got on board with this weird child sexualization thing, they were typical Hollywood in that they thought child molestation was just something that happens and you have to overlook sometimes. And doing a racial box checking is fine I guess (other than apparently taking the place of actual creativity and strong writing in too many instances), but it's not logical to bundle racial representation and LGBTQDGUIOW#$R!!+ reporesentation in the context of a 50% goal. They're not the same thing and it makes zero sense to lump them together. 39% of the US is non-white, less than 1% of the population is trans. IF you're going to do the box checking without a weird child sexualation thing, the logical thing to do would be to say we're going to have X% of characters be non-white (x being determined by whether you are looking at US or world population; if you're looking at world) and we're going to have y% of characters being LGBTQ whatever. You wouldn't say, "well, we need to hit 50% here, do we want Mulan to be non-white or do we want her to be LBGTQ?" They're just not interchangeable.

And again, people want to not discuss sexuality in children's movies. As you note, there are plenty of opportunities for parents to address sexuality in real life. Disney doesn't need to manufacture it in movies in elementary schools or fight in favor of elementary teachers being able to discuss sexuality with their students.

1- I didnt justify the Powder director's actions. I said the director was dangerous, Disney didnt handle it well, and then brought it back to the point I have been making which is grooming and sexualization of kids or for kids isnt in the movie. Once more, the issue I took your post on page 1 that says Disney is performing grooming activities and sexualizing preteen movies. You have not provided anything to defend either of those claims. The movie Powder, from nearly 30 years ago, does not defend either of those claims.

2- I am sorry you dislike racial, cultural, and ethnic representation being included with gender and sex representation. My guess is that Disney wants to display more accurate representation of its audience and so they bundled together all under-represented groups. I really dont know why you(or anyone) would get this upset over a company deciding to be more inclusive and representative of their audience in the movies and shows they produce. Ms Marvel is Pakistani and it her culture was a cool story line. Encanto, Moana, Turning Red- all racial or cultural minorities and all were HUGELY loved by critics and audiences. There is clearly a demand for an increased representation.

3- Again, what movies and shows are sexualizing children or sexualizing content for viewers of an inappropriate age? Where is all this sexualization? What characters actions are so inappropriate that its a repeated talking point for you, Trojan, and others? I think I have seen all the Disney movies over the last 5 years and I dont remember any characters stripping, any characters 17ing, any characters grinding on one another, or any characters even making sexual comments about someone else- and this goes for gay and straight characters.
What sexualization is there?
Honestly, at some point you need to just have your kid watch Thomas and Caillou if you cant handle them watching two women kiss in the same appropriate manner you and your wife kiss. That isnt an entertainment company pushing an agenda, its just a representation of reality.

 

[Negative Waves]

Paul was right in the Book of Romans stating that God would hand them over to a "debased mind". It's amazing how well today's society has progressed like those verses stated a society would go if they rejected God. 2nd Timothy also nailed today's society pretty well too.

 

[Dawgzilla2]

Their stock price was up post covid.

Like I said, there are other factors, to be sure. But to say politics hasn't made an impact is to be completely detached from reality. They got into a very public spat with their state's government. The same state government whose leadership was just re-elected in landslide fashion.

This is a very, very toxic climate for any company to take a position in political policy in either direction. Doing so has consequences, in either direction.

Chapek was forced out primarily over poor decisions with respect to streaming.

The internal complaint about Chapek's response to the "don't say gay bill" was that he failed to oppose the bill quickly enough. Few people within Disney's leadership wanted him to sit that battle out.

As proof, they have reinstated Iger and given him responsibility for preparing a new CEO, Iger was very vocal in opposing the bill, and criticized Chapek for his initial silence on the issue.

Chapek is not being fired for "wokeness" although it is possible some of these social issues have hurt Disney's brand within the US.

 

[Boom Boom]

Chapek was forced out primarily over poor decisions with respect to streaming.

The internal complaint about Chapek's response to the "don't say gay bill" was that he failed to oppose the bill quickly enough. Few people within Disney's leadership wanted him to sit that battle out.

As proof, they have reinstated Iger and given him responsibility for preparing a new CEO, Iger was very vocal in opposing the bill, and criticized Chapek for his initial silence on the issue.

Chapek is not being fired for "wokeness" although it is possible some of these social issues have hurt Disney's brand within the US.

This link says there was a lot of discontent around banksters running the company like stories/good product don't matter, so Iger loyalists pushed the board to this, to bring good storytelling back to the forefront, with the belief that profit flows from quality, not from financial engineering with quality being irrelevant. 3 cheers from me for that.

How a Disney senior staff rebellion put the final nail in Bob Chapek’s CEO coffin

Trouble had been brewing for months as CFO Christine McCarthy and other senior figures campaigned with the Disney board to force Chapek's ouster.

fortune.com

 

[Mr Todd French]

All you Disney haters really going to flip out when I tell about Santa!!!

 

[Uncle Ruckus]

Did Disney once with kids. Been too Universal every other year for the past 12 years.

Did you allow them to use the bathroom on the way there? Or is that just trips to Starkville?

 

[GloryDawg]

Did you allow them to use the bathroom on the way there? Or is that just trips to Starkville?

My son is 18 years old. If you want to meet him one day and ask, I am sure he would oblige you. That's not funny anymore.

 

[Uncle Ruckus]

My son is 18 years old. If you want to meet him one day and ask, I am sure he would oblige you. That's not funny anymore.

You don’t even know how much I bench though

 

[Ibdancin]

1- I didnt justify the Powder director's actions. I said the director was dangerous, Disney didnt handle it well, and then brought it back to the point I have been making which is grooming and sexualization of kids or for kids isnt in the movie. Once more, the issue I took your post on page 1 that says Disney is performing grooming activities and sexualizing preteen movies. You have not provided anything to defend either of those claims. The movie Powder, from nearly 30 years ago, does not defend either of those claims.

2- I am sorry you dislike racial, cultural, and ethnic representation being included with gender and sex representation. My guess is that Disney wants to display more accurate representation of its audience and so they bundled together all under-represented groups. I really dont know why you(or anyone) would get this upset over a company deciding to be more inclusive and representative of their audience in the movies and shows they produce. Ms Marvel is Pakistani and it her culture was a cool story line. Encanto, Moana, Turning Red- all racial or cultural minorities and all were HUGELY loved by critics and audiences. There is clearly a demand for an increased representation.

3- Again, what movies and shows are sexualizing children or sexualizing content for viewers of an inappropriate age? Where is all this sexualization? What characters actions are so inappropriate that its a repeated talking point for you, Trojan, and others? I think I have seen all the Disney movies over the last 5 years and I dont remember any characters stripping, any characters 17ing, any characters grinding on one another, or any characters even making sexual comments about someone else- and this goes for gay and straight characters.
What sexualization is there?
Honestly, at some point you need to just have your kid watch Thomas and Caillou if you cant handle them watching two women kiss in the same appropriate manner you and your wife kiss. That isnt an entertainment company pushing an agenda, its just a representation of reality.

Well, for one, you have many executives on tape talking about how they were going to push genderism and will do so no matter the fall out.

Vivian Ware removed from all of Disney properties "Ladies and Gentlemen" and "boys and girls".

“Our leadership over there had been so welcoming to my not-at-all-secret gay agenda,” said Ms. Raveneau. "I just was like, no one would stop me and no one was trying to stop me.”

“Especially with trans characters, you can’t see if someone is trans, there’s not one way to look trans, and so kind of the only way to have these canonical trans characters, canonical asexual characters, canonical bisexual characters is to give them stories where they can be their whole selves,”

Cole Sprouse has talked about Disney sexualizing kids. This is one of the twins from Suite Life of Zack and Cody.

The point is that people still remember the beginning of the movement that got us to where we are now. Words of people like Harry Hay who wore the sign in a march "NAMBLA marches with me". Or the words of Allen Ginsberg “We’ll get you through your children!”. These are not obscure people. They are famous. Harry Hay is used in Pride Month as a hero in schools. The man that promoted, until his death, NAMBLA!

Balenciaga just did an ad where they sexualized toddlers. They used a bear in bondage attire and even put a court case about pedophilia being free speech in the ad! The ad has been taken down and the company removed all of their social media from all platforms because people have had enough of this. They even tried to blame the photographer! We all know that the company has a rep and it goes through a complete approval process!

The lists go on and on. To say there is no such thing as grooming is just ignorance. How many examples do we need to show before it's no longer an isolated event?

You asked for a movie or a show. I have given you many examples from the very movement to the words of the executives. If their words are not enough for you, then it's no longer a matter of "I don't see it". You simply do not want to see it or you simply are ok with it.

Daniel Villareal wrote an article. The headline "“Can We Please Just Start Admitting That We Do Actually Want To Indoctrinate Kids?” He was being honest. A direct quote from that article:

“They accuse us of exploiting children and in response we say, ‘NOOO! We’re not gonna make kids learn about homosexuality, we swear! It’s not like we’re trying to recruit your children or anything.’ But let’s face it — that’s a lie. We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept ***** sexuality. In fact, our very future depends on it.”


Again, you can say this is not a thing, but the very words of the movement say it out loud and they don't care what you "think".

 

[HailStout]

This thread every time it starts to drift down the page:

 

[mstateglfr]

Well, for one, you have many executives on tape talking about how they were going to push genderism and will do so no matter the fall out.

Vivian Ware removed from all of Disney properties "Ladies and Gentlemen" and "boys and girls".

“Our leadership over there had been so welcoming to my not-at-all-secret gay agenda,” said Ms. Raveneau. "I just was like, no one would stop me and no one was trying to stop me.”

“Especially with trans characters, you can’t see if someone is trans, there’s not one way to look trans, and so kind of the only way to have these canonical trans characters, canonical asexual characters, canonical bisexual characters is to give them stories where they can be their whole selves,”

Cole Sprouse has talked about Disney sexualizing kids. This is one of the twins from Suite Life of Zack and Cody.

The point is that people still remember the beginning of the movement that got us to where we are now. Words of people like Harry Hay who wore the sign in a march "NAMBLA marches with me". Or the words of Allen Ginsberg “We’ll get you through your children!”. These are not obscure people. They are famous. Harry Hay is used in Pride Month as a hero in schools. The man that promoted, until his death, NAMBLA!

Balenciaga just did an ad where they sexualized toddlers. They used a bear in bondage attire and even put a court case about pedophilia being free speech in the ad! The ad has been taken down and the company removed all of their social media from all platforms because people have had enough of this. They even tried to blame the photographer! We all know that the company has a rep and it goes through a complete approval process!

The lists go on and on. To say there is no such thing as grooming is just ignorance. How many examples do we need to show before it's no longer an isolated event?

You asked for a movie or a show. I have given you many examples from the very movement to the words of the executives. If their words are not enough for you, then it's no longer a matter of "I don't see it". You simply do not want to see it or you simply are ok with it.

Daniel Villareal wrote an article. The headline "“Can We Please Just Start Admitting That We Do Actually Want To Indoctrinate Kids?” He was being honest. A direct quote from that article:

“They accuse us of exploiting children and in response we say, ‘NOOO! We’re not gonna make kids learn about homosexuality, we swear! It’s not like we’re trying to recruit your children or anything.’ But let’s face it — that’s a lie. We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept ***** sexuality. In fact, our very future depends on it.”


Again, you can say this is not a thing, but the very words of the movement say it out loud and they don't care what you "think".

Oh my gosh you just threw everything in the pot and served it up for us to eat. What a shitshow of a post.
There is just so much randomness that I honestly dont have the desire to address each ramble.

- You managed to bring NAMBLA into the discussion, congrats. You didnt at all tie it to Disney, which is the topic of the thread, but why let that ruin a good rant...right?
- Those guys you mention are not famous. I would bet that less than 5% of this board would honestly know who they are if asked and didnt have google next to them to lean on. I dont think their actions with NAMBLA should be celebrated and both were viewed as very extreme when alive and also in death. Neither of them were Disney executives, to be clear.
- Can we get back to the fact that you just forced NAMBLA into the conversation and didnt even attempt to tie it to Disney? Total randomness.
- Oh, and then you rant about some ad campaign by an Italian clothing brand. What the 17 does that have to do with Disney? Some overpriced clothing brand in Italy is not owned by Disney and did not use Disney IP for the campaing so why are you forcing that into the discussion? I 100% believe you know about this Balenciaga ad campaign because of some right wing outrage mediahead ranted about it. It just drips of outrage media coverage. Anyways, it sounds really odd and not something I would buy. It also sounds like it has nothing to do with Disney.
- I dont know who Daniel Villareal is and dont know why you think an op-ed of his from over a decade ago has anything to do with Disney.

That was just...wow. Try to stay on track next time.

 

[Trojanbulldog19]

This thread every time it starts to drift down the page:

View attachment 266638

Hot button topics: you're welcome DS

 

[Ibdancin]

Oh my gosh you just threw everything in the pot and served it up for us to eat. What a shitshow of a post.
There is just so much randomness that I honestly dont have the desire to address each ramble.

- You managed to bring NAMBLA into the discussion, congrats. You didnt at all tie it to Disney, which is the topic of the thread, but why let that ruin a good rant...right?
- Those guys you mention are not famous. I would bet that less than 5% of this board would honestly know who they are if asked and didnt have google next to them to lean on. I dont think their actions with NAMBLA should be celebrated and both were viewed as very extreme when alive and also in death. Neither of them were Disney executives, to be clear.
- Can we get back to the fact that you just forced NAMBLA into the conversation and didnt even attempt to tie it to Disney? Total randomness.
- Oh, and then you rant about some ad campaign by an Italian clothing brand. What the 17 does that have to do with Disney? Some overpriced clothing brand in Italy is not owned by Disney and did not use Disney IP for the campaing so why are you forcing that into the discussion? I 100% believe you know about this Balenciaga ad campaign because of some right wing outrage mediahead ranted about it. It just drips of outrage media coverage. Anyways, it sounds really odd and not something I would buy. It also sounds like it has nothing to do with Disney.
- I dont know who Daniel Villareal is and dont know why you think an op-ed of his from over a decade ago has anything to do with Disney.

That was just...wow. Try to stay on track next time.

No, I gave you a lesson in history that is easily verifiable. You are the one that made history (the 50s and 60s) a part of the topic. I simply pointed out people from that era. It is the subject. It's a complete picture of what has been happening.

- I did manage to point out that Grooming has always been a part of the movement. Yes. I did.

- Yes, I tied it to Disney by using the executives own words. Again, verifiable if you actually wanted to know.

- Yes, thos guys ARE famous and Like I stated Harry Hay is used by GLAAD and is noted as a hero of the movement. Easily verifiable. Since you do not want to look it up, here are links to it and him being used in the schools systems. Meet Pioneer of Gay Rights, Harry Hay LGBT History Month He has been called "the father of gay liberation." They are celebrated in school during that month.

Just because you are not paying attention does not mean others are not.

- Yes, neither of them are disney executives, but the disney executives words are listed. They are of the same language and goals listed. And anybody that reads the words of the disney executives and these "heroes" can see they are of the same vein.

- I tied it it to the words of the Disney executives. Same line of thought.

- The ad shows that this is not some isolated event with 1 executive. It's a complete movement. The ad is not by just an Italian company. They are world wide. That you are some how trying to defend the ad by saying it's right wing media outrage is pretty sick.


- It seems you don't want people to mention history except for you. It doesn't work that way. You made history apart of this, I simply gave the history



BTW.... I could have never linked any of this in response had they never stated or done these things. These are not made up quotes by the Disney Executives. These are not made up words by those in the history you decided to bring up. These are not made "heroes" as the link shows. Had they never stated it, nor in actions promoted it I could not have linked it.

It seems to me you are upset over that information being out there rather than the information itself.

 

[mstateglfr]

- It seems you don't want people to mention history except for you. It doesn't work that way. You made history apart of this, I simply gave the history

- What history did I put forth that opened this up to a history lesson having nothing at all to do with Disney?

- Yes I read the comments from Disney execs. No that doesnt sexualize movies or groom kids, not matter how badly you and others want to claim. Its like those words dont mean anything since they are being so misapplied.

- Those guys arent famous. You know who is famous? Abe Lincoln. Brad Pitt. LeBron James. Britney Spears. Harry Hay?...nope. He is well known by a small group of supporters and a small group of haters. That isnt fame.

- Trying to tie the views of a couple extremists from a few decades ago to Disney execs is lame.

- Once more- what Disney movies and shows are so offensive? What Disney movies are we even talking about here? What Disney movies and shows are so terribly offensive that it has many here up in arms? What movies include kids being groomed? What movies show deplorable sexualization?
Reality is that some characters have recently been more ethnically and racially diverse than in decades past. And some may also identify as gay or trans moving forward. That is all thats happened and yet people are losing their ****.



America is hilarious.
Kids can approvingly play with guns and pretend to kill one another, but lord help us if they see a married gay couple kiss when saying goodbye in a movie!
Adults can kill people in a Walmart or at a school and nothing will be done to try and prevent that from happening again moving forward, but some legislators and justices are hellbent on overturning Obergefell and also inserting themselves(the state) into the Dr's office with parent, child, and doctor.
What a place to live- the priorities of some are mindboggling.

 

[Ibdancin]

- What history did I put forth that opened this up to a history lesson having nothing at all to do with Disney?

- Yes I read the comments from Disney execs. No that doesnt sexualize movies or groom kids, not matter how badly you and others want to claim. Its like those words dont mean anything since they are being so misapplied.

- Those guys arent famous. You know who is famous? Abe Lincoln. Brad Pitt. LeBron James. Britney Spears. Harry Hay?...nope. He is well known by a small group of supporters and a small group of haters. That isnt fame.

- Trying to tie the views of a couple extremists from a few decades ago to Disney execs is lame.

- Once more- what Disney movies and shows are so offensive? What Disney movies are we even talking about here? What Disney movies and shows are so terribly offensive that it has many here up in arms? What movies include kids being groomed? What movies show deplorable sexualization?
Reality is that some characters have recently been more ethnically and racially diverse than in decades past. And some may also identify as gay or trans moving forward. That is all thats happened and yet people are losing their ****.



America is hilarious.
Kids can approvingly play with guns and pretend to kill one another, but lord help us if they see a married gay couple kiss when saying goodbye in a movie!
Adults can kill people in a Walmart or at a school and nothing will be done to try and prevent that from happening again moving forward, but some legislators and justices are hellbent on overturning Obergefell and also inserting themselves(the state) into the Dr's office with parent, child, and doctor.
What a place to live- the priorities of some are mindboggling.

- Did you or did you not bring up the 60s?

- Yes, their words do. Nothing about those words are being "misapplied" and you can not explain how they are.

- They are and they are celebrated. That "small group" are the people we are talking about in this thread. They would not be celebrated by places like GLAAD if not.

NOW REMEMBER.. I LINKED GLAAD who actually celebrates Harry Hay. Here is GLAAD on Disney: Disney to air a public service announcement titled “Protect Our Families” that was created by media monitoring organization GLAAD. This was ran on Disney channel, Over and over and over.

- Running ads on Disney channel that is directed towards kids is the very epitome of conditioning kids. AKA grooming.

- This has zero to do with race. I have not even seen anybody bring that up but you.




You are free to believe or accept what you want up until you or anybody or entity targets my kids. When it gets to that point, the discussion is over. It's why disney lost 1.6 Billion in streaming revenue in 1 quarter. It's why parent boards all over america have been flipped and why many many more will be.

- No, it's illegal for people to kill others in cold blood premeditated. BTW.. The largest mass murder at a school wasn't done with a gun (protected right) but with dynamite.

 

[Boom Boom]

- Did you or did you not bring up the 60s?

- Yes, their words do. Nothing about those words are being "misapplied" and you can not explain how they are.

- They are and they are celebrated. That "small group" are the people we are talking about in this thread. They would not be celebrated by places like GLAAD if not.

NOW REMEMBER.. I LINKED GLAAD who actually celebrates Harry Hay. Here is GLAAD on Disney: Disney to air a public service announcement titled “Protect Our Families” that was created by media monitoring organization GLAAD. This was ran on Disney channel, Over and over and over.

- Running ads on Disney channel that is directed towards kids is the very epitome of conditioning kids. AKA grooming.

- This has zero to do with race. I have not even seen anybody bring that up but you.




You are free to believe or accept what you want up until you or anybody or entity targets my kids. When it gets to that point, the discussion is over. It's why disney lost 1.6 Billion in streaming revenue in 1 quarter. It's why parent boards all over america have been flipped and why many many more will be.

- No, it's illegal for people to kill others in cold blood premeditated. BTW.. The largest mass murder at a school wasn't done with a gun (protected right) but with dynamite.

Jeebus. GLAAD celebrates Harry Hay (who?). Ok, if you say so (though I doubt it). GLAAD makes an ad (apparently in no way related to Harry Hay?). Disney airs the (apparently innocuous) ad. Thus, Disney is grooming kids? Did I follow?

 

[HailStout]