Law DeSantis promises to control Disney

[Hdfi]

Are you OK with government censorship here?

Yes.

There are worse things than censorship, degenerate wokism is one of them.

 

[44nutman]

I'm a big fan of duly elected governors appointing people who agree with their values to positions of power on committees.

If you pony up 50K to White Boots Ron's campaign, you can get on the board, because that appears to be the only qualification you need to get appointed to the board.

 

[Fake Doctor]

I'm entirely with you (including the previous post) except that Trump said,

The only reason it didn't register higher on the presumed fascism scale is that it didn't gain the desired traction, IMHO, but he definitely tried, just in a different and more wide-reaching manner. Similarly, he floated the wall idea and a whole host of other things. I'm not sure whether it makes him less dangerous to be throwing shit out there and looking for whatever sticks but when it succeeds it's less obvious than DeSantis's blatant heavy-handedness. I think that makes DeSantis a more make or break/high risk/reward type in as much as if people continue to go along with DeSantis (presuming he keeps that shit up) things will get wild, but he's more likely to break on the rocks of going too far--again, just my opinion--whereas Trump is in for the long haul--they were wailing about "Stop the Steal" in 2015 and he has the persistence of the truly obsessed. He can afford to be because he's got all of conservative talk radio plus Fox News, OANN and others feeding him the flavor of the week.

It's going to get interesting* for the Americans if they show strong support for either of them, frankly.


*interesting in the sense of the aphorism "May you live in interesting times." If they're not equally dangerous they're both more dangerous than the US should be toying with, to me.

I actually don't agree with this, and as I view it, this plays into the overuse of the term "fascist" on the internet.

First off, until he's leveraging state authority to stymie those news sources, it's not fascism - it's just Trump doing what he does and talking a lot of shit. I understand that the lines get blurred when a person with the power to actually do something says "These people are assholes! We should do something about them!" - but I'm not sure what was done to actually attack the news at a systemic level, rather than just declare them the enemy of the people and then go on to tweeting about nuking a hurricane or something.

Second, as for the wall, building a wall at the border isn't fascist in itself. Seriously - even xenophobia isn't strictly fascist. You can have xenophobic hardcore democrats, wall building socialists, you name it. Neither thing is inherently fascist. It's when it gets married to a figure/government that is pushing heavy centralized government power and mixes the government with corporations to do it, that they become fascist. I think, in sum, Trump is a different beast.

Part of why I think he isn't a fascist is because, if you could say that Trump did anything with a philosophy backing it, oftentimes he was pushing for decentralizing the power of the Federal government. Not in everything - but in many aspects of his governance, he was actually pushing for state authority to be primary rather than a centralized Federal government crackdown. That is dead the opposite direction from fascism. Fascists don't divest power to sub-national units, and Trump has done that quite a bit.

People will treat this as a throwaway comment, but it's not. Trump has a *HOST* of serious issues, both as a person and a governor. I just don't see being fascist, in any systematic sense, as one of them. He does a lot of shit, and some of those things will be the types of things that a fascist might do. But, to put it bluntly, if we hold politicians to that standard, every Democrat pushing for increased centralized power in the Federal government, withholding funding due to bathroom bills, or pushing large companies to censor content a certain way, could be called a fascist. They're not. Much like Trump, they're their own special kind of bad, and you could latch on to individual things and say "fascist!" but they don't fit the bill. Fascism, as a term, more or less gets slapped onto "anything bad" - but a governance philosophy and portfolio can be bad, very bad, and still not be fascist. This is not "He's not a fascist, so he's not that bad" - it's "he's not a fascist, and he can still be very bad." I am not a Trump supporter - though, as I always disclose, I find the guy hilarious and that colours my commentary on him, if not my actual support of him.

I will say, I think Desantis is one of the guys I'd watch closely on this front. I like some of the angles he pushes, but I do not like the way he is approaching it. Hopefully it's just a response to the pugilistic politics of the time - the "they're hitting us, so we'll hit back" philosophy - and not a philosophically fascist approach.

On a side note, those pugilistic politics which Trudeau is pushing hard, is why we went from moderates like Scheer and O'Toole to the much more extreme PP leading the Canadian conservatives. Let this be a lesson to you and other Liberal voters - if you keep voting for a guy who punches the opposition, the opposition will stop taking the middle road and start pushing candidates who punch back. Both PP and Trudeau are a sign of a serious, and dangerous, political schism in Canada. If you don't want to see PP's rising up, kick assholes like Trudeau to the curb.

 

[Sara]

Why was Disney ever allowed to self govern in the first place?

 

[Fake Doctor]

Why was Disney ever allowed to self govern in the first place?

Probably helped get them into the state. This has been a long standing thing. My guess is that, decades ago or whenever this happened, it was a bit like places bidding for the big Amazon expansion a few years ago - states wanted to have a massive megacorporation set up shop in their state because of the jobs, tourism (in Disney's case) the prestige, etc. Florida probably told Disney "You come to our state and you're in charge of your own land" as part of the pitch.

 

[Bald1]

Control a private company? Nope, can't have that. On the flip side, government stepping in to stop strikes in the private sector is a flip side of such thoughts.

The idea of revoking special status from big business is sound. Doing so as punishment for political disagreement doesn't sit well. Money shouldn't buy privilege. Yet when Amazon, for example, has the leverage to shop around for the most favourable tax exempt status for their new facilities then clearly that's already the case. No idea how to turn back the clock on that front. But setting more dangerous precedents isn't it.

 

[Bald1]

Probably helped get them into the state. This has been a long standing thing. My guess is that, decades ago or whenever this happened, it was a bit like places bidding for the big Amazon expansion a few years ago - states wanted to have a massive megacorporation set up shop in their state because of the jobs, tourism (in Disney's case) the prestige, etc. Florida probably told Disney "You come to our state and you're in charge of your own land" as part of the pitch.

Heh. Beat me to it by two minutes.

 

[44nutman]

Why was Disney ever allowed to self govern in the first place?

Without Disney. Orlando would not be considered a big city in Florida. I live an hour away from Disney and Disney along with the other amusement parks pump the economy.
Orlando’s population grew by more than 165% since Disney World opened, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Its population of 287,442 as of July 1, 2019 is almost triple its population of 99,006 in 1970.
Walt wanted to build and did not want to wait on the government to approve it. If Disney needs a road, they dont have to get it approved they just do it. Also the way it is set up I save a shit load on my property taxes, which is why Desantis kept the tax rate the same, because in 2 counties the taxes would have tripled or more and that would have hurt his popularity. So Walt came in with lawyers and negotiated it with the government and they were forward thinking enough to be like, this could really help our area, with growth, spurned on by millions of visitors, which it does. So they agreed, because Walt would have went elsewhere. I am glad they made that decision, because my business, is better off with Disney in Central Florida. I do business in that area. Most of the subdivisions in the Four Corners area of Central Florida are zoned for short term rentals which are daily rentals. I do tons of work over there, and those house are built to house tourist, and a majority of owners are out of the country, who rent those houses out, and then stay there a couple weeks a year. You need people to manage those properties, cut the grass, clean them and manage them. Then Disney employees tens of thousands of employees. Sure most of the jobs are not great earnings, but those jobs drive the economy.
There are also multiple other districts in Florida with the same exemption, but they were left alone, because they did not dare to publicly criticize Desantis. The old CEO of Disney, I think got goaded into it, which ultimately cost him his job. Disney brought in the old CEO, who just gave Desantis some money, and will deal with the theater of the board. Iger the new CEO will stay away from publicly saying anything about Desantis and still run the company the way its always been run. Iger is a shareholder friendly CEO, so the stock price should do well under him.

 

[panamaican]

Why was Disney ever allowed to self govern in the first place?

Probably helped get them into the state. This has been a long standing thing. My guess is that, decades ago or whenever this happened, it was a bit like places bidding for the big Amazon expansion a few years ago - states wanted to have a massive megacorporation set up shop in their state because of the jobs, tourism (in Disney's case) the prestige, etc. Florida probably told Disney "You come to our state and you're in charge of your own land" as part of the pitch.

It wasn't this or, at least it wasn't primarily this. It was that the proposed park was going to have a massive infrastructure burden. If they left the land between the original 2 counties, those counties were going to have significant drains on their coffers handling the roads, the police, the fire, etc. Plus since the land was between 2 counties, you'd have constant fights over who was responsible for what. Disney wanted the power to expand their park as they saw fit and dealing with multiple county boards was going to be a real burden since boards change faster than new construction gets completed.

The district was created to address all of those issues. It gave Disney the freedom to expand as desired. But it also freed the counties from dealing with the costs that Disney would have created for them.

It's a little different from an Amazon because, in those scenarios, the corporation is looking for benefits because it's going to create jobs and, ideally, tax payers which means more revenue for the county/state. Cutting the corporation a break is like a loss leader. Disney's issue was different because the type of business was actually going to create costs, not revenue.

 

[Hdfi]

Control a private company? Nope, can't have that. On the flip side, government stepping in to stop strikes in the private sector is a flip side of such thoughts.

The idea of revoking special status from big business is sound. Doing so as punishment for political disagreement doesn't sit well. Money shouldn't buy privilege. Yet when Amazon, for example, has the leverage to shop around for the most favourable tax exempt status for their new facilities then clearly that's already the case. No idea how to turn back the clock on that front. But setting more dangerous precedents isn't it.

it's not like Disney isn't paying politicians (especially Democrats) to buy influence...

 

[panamaican]

The same people complaining that De Santis is supposedly "authoritarian" (Islam Imamate, Panamaican, etc.) are against democratic elections to choose moderators on Sherdog.

Keep that in mind.

Keep in mind that Sherdog is a private business and Florida is a government? I'll try.

I know that you think you're making some kind of point about hypocrisy but even you have to realize just how bad a comparison that was...right? When have the rules on how a business should operate ever been comparable to how a democratic government should operate? It's kind of crazy that you think they're similar enough that you typed that statement without hesitation.

 

[Poatan Power]

Most Americans have at least outwardly expressed the view that it's acceptable for people or companies to disagree with governors or other politicians. A lot of people are concerned about the possible impact of Republicans rejecting that view.

I think the devil is in the details. If Disney had special treatment, and is now being brought back down to equality, maybe that was the right answer all along. The "Don't Groom K-3" bill wasn't an immoral bill or perspective.

 

[Hdfi]

Keep in mind that Sherdog is a private business and Florida is a government? I'll try.

I know that you think you're making some kind of point about hypocrisy but even you have to realize just how bad a comparison that was...right? When have the rules on how a business should operate ever been comparable to how a democratic government should operate? It's kind of crazy that you think they're similar enough that you typed that statement without hesitation.

It exposes the authoritarian tendency of certain people and how they are actually in favor of censorship when it suits them.

 

[44nutman]

I think the devil is in the details. If Disney had special treatment, and is now being brought back down to equality, maybe that was the right answer all along. The "Don't Groom K-3" bill wasn't an immoral bill or perspective.

What about all the other districts with special treatment, who did not dare criticize Desantis? Those districts kept the special attention.
I get worried when the government lashes out at people disagreeing with them. That is some Banana Republic bullshit.
The reason for the 1st amendment is because in Europe you could be jailed for criticizing the King. In a Democracy, if you are a leader you cant be naive enough to think every one is going to agree with all your decisions. Only a narcissist would think that.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I think the devil is in the details. If Disney had special treatment, and is now being brought back down to equality, maybe that was the right answer all along. The "Don't Groom K-3" bill wasn't an immoral bill or perspective.

It's not really that special as a lot of companies have the same treatment. And come on, they are clearly being punished for disagreeing with the governor. You can't even admit that? I would certainly agree that grooming kids to be abused is really bad, but I don't think acknowledging the existence of gay people is anything even remotely similar to that.

 

[Poatan Power]

It's not really that special as a lot of companies have the same treatment. And come on, they are clearly being punished for disagreeing with the governor. You can't even admit that? I would certainly agree that grooming kids to be abused is really bad, but I don't think acknowledging the existence of gay people is anything even remotely similar to that.

I wouldn't say that bill prevents the acknowledging of gay people. As the father of a 5 year old I am curious as to why she would have to be exposed to LGBTQ+ issues at all in the classroom outside of someone having 2 moms, 2 dads, etc., or, a teacher for some odd reason needing to expose that they have a same sex significant other. I find it odd because as a junior college clinical instructor and martial arts instructor of children that age that information never came up. I certainly don't think curriculum should include LGBTQ+ teaching, information, or education. I mean, I also don't think you should be teaching them about heterosexual sex either, unless it's to say a baby comes from a heterosexual relationship because that's basic biology with cats, dogs, cows, pigs, humans, etc.

yes, changes are 100% occurring because of their stance with the governor. But it seems more to me that previously held advantages are being scaled back and they are being treated like other similar private businesses as opposed to being a special class. Floridians have no obligation so subsidize a company that directly and implicitly opposes the citizens viewpoints more than what they are legally owed like every other business.

I think it hasn't helped them that they have parroted leftist false narratives. The bill was not a don't say gay bill. It was a reflection of the state citizens and their wishes for publicly subsidized education for their children, and it's overwhelmingly supported. I don't think it's discriminatory, either, mostly because of the age group. If someone wants to debate about whether 5 year olds should be taught about sex in general, gay or trans or whatever or not, I think that's a losing fight for those in favor of enhancing sexual education for people who just graduated from toddlerism.

 

[Andy Capp]

I actually don't agree with this, and as I view it, this plays into the overuse of the term "fascist" on the internet.

First off, until he's leveraging state authority to stymie those news sources, it's not fascism - it's just Trump doing what he does and talking a lot of shit. I understand that the lines get blurred when a person with the power to actually do something says "These people are assholes! We should do something about them!" - but I'm not sure what was done to actually attack the news at a systemic level, rather than just declare them the enemy of the people and then go on to tweeting about nuking a hurricane or something.

Second, as for the wall, building a wall at the border isn't fascist in itself. Seriously - even xenophobia isn't strictly fascist. You can have xenophobic hardcore democrats, wall building socialists, you name it. Neither thing is inherently fascist. It's when it gets married to a figure/government that is pushing heavy centralized government power and mixes the government with corporations to do it, that they become fascist. I think, in sum, Trump is a different beast.

Part of why I think he isn't a fascist is because, if you could say that Trump did anything with a philosophy backing it, oftentimes he was pushing for decentralizing the power of the Federal government. Not in everything - but in many aspects of his governance, he was actually pushing for state authority to be primary rather than a centralized Federal government crackdown. That is dead the opposite direction from fascism. Fascists don't divest power to sub-national units, and Trump has done that quite a bit.

People will treat this as a throwaway comment, but it's not. Trump has a *HOST* of serious issues, both as a person and a governor. I just don't see being fascist, in any systematic sense, as one of them. He does a lot of shit, and some of those things will be the types of things that a fascist might do. But, to put it bluntly, if we hold politicians to that standard, every Democrat pushing for increased centralized power in the Federal government, withholding funding due to bathroom bills, or pushing large companies to censor content a certain way, could be called a fascist. They're not. Much like Trump, they're their own special kind of bad, and you could latch on to individual things and say "fascist!" but they don't fit the bill. Fascism, as a term, more or less gets slapped onto "anything bad" - but a governance philosophy and portfolio can be bad, very bad, and still not be fascist. This is not "He's not a fascist, so he's not that bad" - it's "he's not a fascist, and he can still be very bad." I am not a Trump supporter - though, as I always disclose, I find the guy hilarious and that colours my commentary on him, if not my actual support of him.

I will say, I think Desantis is one of the guys I'd watch closely on this front. I like some of the angles he pushes, but I do not like the way he is approaching it. Hopefully it's just a response to the pugilistic politics of the time - the "they're hitting us, so we'll hit back" philosophy - and not a philosophically fascist approach.

On a side note, those pugilistic politics which Trudeau is pushing hard, is why we went from moderates like Scheer and O'Toole to the much more extreme PP leading the Canadian conservatives. Let this be a lesson to you and other Liberal voters - if you keep voting for a guy who punches the opposition, the opposition will stop taking the middle road and start pushing candidates who punch back. Both PP and Trudeau are a sign of a serious, and dangerous, political schism in Canada. If you don't want to see PP's rising up, kick assholes like Trudeau to the curb.

You misunderstood my point in mentioning the wall. I wasn't adding it as support for the suggestion he has fascist ideas and principles, rather that he floats out whatever ideas he gleans from people like Roger Stone and then watches to see which ones make waves on conservative talk radio, Fox News, and the like. He only keeps pushing the ones that seem to catch on and it makes no difference to him which ones do, but some of them are clearly in that territory, like "Fox News isn't doing enough to get the Republicans and me elected," and saying when police are putting suspected criminals in their cars they shouldn't be too gentle. Remember how gentle they were with that poor bastard who died in the back of a police van?

That said, I don't see much, if anything else to disagree with here--I don't have a strong conviction on the fascist Trump scenario--other than the last paragraph. The conservative party's own members booted these other leaders; that's nothing to do with Trudeau. And I repeat yet again, you don't vote directly for the prime minister in this country and I didn't select this tool to lead. The conservatives could try being a little less shitty if they want people to switch their support to them but as you've pointed out, they seem to be doubling down on the shitty instead. If Trudeau has managed to engineer that he's a frikken political genius and I think that unlikely.

I think the more likely explanation is the manifestation in Canada of a version of Trumpism. You never hear conservative politicians these days talking about concrete plans to make changes in things they complain about; you only hear the constant whine of complaints. That's up to them to change or people will continue to vote Liberal or NDP only because they feel they can't be as bad as the Conservatives.

 

[volodya]

I actually wanted to like this guy at first since in a lot of ways he was a big improvement over Rick Scott but nah, he's an authoritarian goofball. Sad because part of me wants to see a Florida governor make it to the White House but now I hope Trump runs this guy over in the primary.

Curious why you want a Florida governor in the white house. Lol

 

[44nutman]

It's not really that special as a lot of companies have the same treatment. And come on, they are clearly being punished for disagreeing with the governor. You can't even admit that? I would certainly agree that grooming kids to be abused is really bad, but I don't think acknowledging the existence of gay people is anything even remotely similar to that.

All the free speech absolutist on this board support Desantis decision which is not consistent with being a free speech absolutist. Basically they are for free speech if it helps their team.
No matter what Disney's take was on Desantis' law, they still should not be punished for questioning his decisions. If Desantis decided to pass a law outlawing gay people, are companies supposed to be quiet in fear of retribution. Desantis has made that no company better dare question his decisions, which is not what America was built on. Does it stop with Disney or now does it extend to cable news. Only Fox news will be allowed to be shown in Florida. Its a very slippery slope. What happens if Florida gets a Democratic governor and that person decides to wield the power Desantis established? Nobody ever thinks that far ahead.
Desantis could have handled it without being petty. That is what real leaders do, defend their position without having to resort to the power. If you need to resort to your power then you cant defend your argument. Even though in the long run he did nothing but get some of his donors appointed to the board. Its not like those guys are going to tell Disney the last movie you had, the main character had 2 moms so you cant build that road. Desantis deserve an Oscar for this political theater. He got his name out there, base eats it up, Disney just gave him a 50k campaign contribution and nothing really changed.

 

[panamaican]

It exposes the authoritarian tendency of certain people and how they are actually in favor of censorship when it suits them.

Oh, well now that you retyped the same idiocy it definitely makes more sense...<45>