DeSantis vs. Disney

To make money. You'll get no argument from me about corporations doing business in China. I think it's short-sighted and stupid to invest billions in countries with totalitarian regimes (see Russia, how'd that work out?). But Disney does what it thinks is in its best interest as a business. And it felt that speaking out against DeSantis's anti gay law in Florida was in its best business interests.

It is ironic that people bring up China though. Speaking out against the state in China will get you punished there. Just like speaking out against the state in Florida now gets you punished here.

 

This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that DeSantis abused his governmental power to punish Disney specifically for taking a political position different from his own.

What DeSantis did is similar to Trump trying to use the USPS to punish Jeff Besos, because he owns the Washington Post, which often published articles or op eds that Trump didn't like.

 

The stat that always makes me stop- they have more honors students than we have students. My graduate program was dominated by Chinese students. And they were years ahead of the rest of us.

 

Be me to it on Elon. It's just a distraction argument, not a real one. It's the modern-day China Syndrome.

In terms of Disney's special concern on this particular issue, it drives a lot from their employees. Unlike other theme parks, they are major content creators as an overall company and have plenty of employees are performers, who are overrepresented in the LGBTQ community and/or have significant sympathies.

Also, the Disney cultural brand, the IP, has a lot more appeal to the community. Before Chapek, Disney was pretty consistent in expressing greater support on the issue that was generally considered to be socially acceptable for the times. It's been a flashpoint with cultural conservatives at least back to the 1990s. The controversies over the so-called "Gay Days" at the Magic Kingdom and the claims that Disney was too gay friendly, both in the trying to shut down these exercises and in some of its content even then.

It really speaks to the flashpoint. Disney opponents think that being gay friendly and even having gay characters and its content is inconsistent with being the classic middlebrow family entertainment option. Those on the other side, such as myself, believe it is exactly consistent with family values. But our society is still heavily heteronormative, at least in some segments, and there is always emotional energy in tapping into desires to "protect the children", even though the children are usually far less concerned and far more accepting than their parents.

 

Those students are the exception to the rule. There’s always this unfair comparison of the brightest foreign students to our entire student base, that was used to attack our public school system.

In the mid-70’s when the Vietnamese escaped from the communist takeover, there was talk about how those children “came out of the jungle” knowing how to do advanced math, when in reality these were children of the privileged who were being educated in South Vietnamese prep schools.

 

I agree, its weird to talk about China. Its not like Disney is cutting off content to Arkansas or Texas, states that have passed anti-LGBTQ laws. They arent going to stop doing business in Florida either. And really, that is probably what the people who think Disney is some kind of ideological weapon would want. If you fear Disney's cultural power, seems like you would want them to cut the cord on content so people that have no affiliation or identification with the government cant view it. Even more so, the people who retaliated against Disney could claim they were retaliating in kind, etc.

 

And yet they still have to pirate all our technology to keep up with us.

 

Shang Chi! Seriously, I think we always underestimate how much American cultural power Disney projects worldwide.

There is always the issue of the way you have to self censor to maintain access to the market. I wish it were not so but it's not like there is no aspect of content that would ever be offensive to American viewers. Mind you I'm not making a strict comparison but I wouldn't want to live in a country where content creators had to modify any story so as not to offend the official line. That could never happen in the US, unless of course, you "stepped over the line" or are they justified the recent bill. It is something like Chinese behavior. But I digress.

 

LOL...Now we are equating special privileges to being fined or subject to prison time.

That is not what is happening at all in this case. Covid has really messed some people up.

 

No. I am saying that the state has a right to offer special privileges. And the state also has the right to take away special privileges.

 

Yeah...other corporations have not been granted the special privileges Disney has been granted. Nothing wrong with taking a look at Disney and see if it is time to bring them to the same playing field as the other corporations.

 

Clearly you lack understanding on this...

 

Bonds are investments. There is always risk in investing.

 

He's either ignorant, a fascist, or is trolling us (ignorant and fascist designations can overlap). His answers are illogical non-sequiturs and are unresponsive to valid points made by others. He is not worthy of a response.

 

Says the one equating special privileges to fines and jail time.

LOL! Needed this laugh!

 

they cannot do so in retaliation for free speech. thing called the bill of rights. you may want to look it up

 

By that standard, and just to pick a random example, a license to practice dentistry could be tied to political speech, since it is a privilege granted to only certain people in the state. You good with that too?

 

And that is a great question for a consumer to ask. But for purposes of the issue ofUS Government retaliation, it is entirely besides the point. As a matter of law, the US Government cannot retaliate against its citizen in response to the exercise of free speech.

 

There are always market risks. There is also the risk that a debtor will be unable to repay its obligations as the result of incompetent management and will declare bankruptcy (see a certain real estate developer turned reality television star turned politician for an example). One risk that investors should not be legally expected to assume is that a governmental entity would withdraw a contractual status conferred on the debtor upon which the investors have reasonably relied.
Edit: This is what happened to the bondholders of a corporation headed by the real estate investor/reality television star/politician mentioned in the original post. They assumed a risk and were badly burned.
Trump Dumps On Bondholders.