The Trump Presidency

Hawk said:
I had a hearty lol at this.
Click to expand...

Disney is a massive and litigious agglomeration of capital. It's purpose, as a for-profit corporate entity, is to increase shareholder value.

It engages in substantial lobbying efforts which are bipartisan in nature, since they're mostly involved with protecting intellectual property. Corporate and individual political donations are a matter of public record, and while they aren't relevant to the question at hand, it's worth noting that the largest single recipient of individual contributions in the 2016 election cycle was Conservative Solutions, an outside GOP group.

Disney's entertainment products reflect their times: when casually racist depictions of minorities were culturally acceptable, their products reflected it. When meticulous and sometimes overweening scrutiny of race/gender issues are the order of the day, their products reflect it.

I'm still waiting for the Pixar adaptation of Das Kapital.
 
Julio3000 said:
Disney is a massive and litigious agglomeration of capital. It's purpose, as a for-profit corporate entity, is to increase shareholder value.

It engages in substantial lobbying efforts which are bipartisan in nature, since they're mostly involved with protecting intellectual property. Corporate and individual political donations are a matter of public record, and while they aren't relevant to the question at hand, it's worth noting that the largest single recipient of individual contributions in the 2016 election cycle was Conservative Solutions, an outside GOP group.

Disney's entertainment products reflect their times: when casually racist depictions of minorities were culturally acceptable, their products reflected it. When meticulous and sometimes overweening scrutiny of race/gender issues are the order of the day, their products reflect it.

I'm still waiting for the Pixar adaptation of Das Kapital.
Click to expand...

So are you saying that "massive and litigous agglomeration of capital" can't be ideologically tethered as a matter of technicality?

Or are you saying that there's no way to demonstrate that a for-profit corporation can have a political ethos?

Also, consider that Disney is an entertainment company, not *just* a conglomerate that has an entertainment division.
 
Julio3000 said:
Hmmm. Let me recap for you.

Sturg made some vague comments about "the left" being somehow involved, with the implication that ESPN is somehow emblematic of this. I responded by suggesting that Disney is not generally an entity that anyone would consider as being of the left. He then made some truly silly comments that seemed to equate economic boycott with arson and threats of violence.

After I poked him a bit for eschewing his usual defense of free speech and markets, he did his usual terrier-with-rat thing about an imaginary boycott and imaginary pressure from the left, extending it from the realm of the imaginary to actual incidents of violence, including the attempted assassination of public figures.

And you're just going to jump in there?

I chose not to engage with what is an obvious, and ridiculous, strawman argument. For the sake of clarity, I find the ESPN decision profoundly silly. Now, if you'll kindly point out for me where people have been clamoring for an ESPN reporter's removal because of his name, we'll talk about it. If you'll show me the mobs with torches outside Bristol, I'll be the first to call the police.
Click to expand...

Excellent. Just couldn't figure out why you and others wouldn't go there. Sometimes you need to just state something or it looks really weird to others not in the heat of your particular battle. You and stung can carry on.
 
"old man yells at crowd."

i think espn is trying to avoid being a national meme. i think their decision is beyond stupid. but i'm not sure what it has to do with "the left."
 
Super said:
"old man yells at crowd."

i think espn is trying to avoid being a national meme. i think their decision is beyond stupid. but i'm not sure what it has to do with "the left."
Click to expand...

Because they were concerned at the backlash (that wouldn't have happened)... and who do you think that backlash would have come from?
 
I would genuinely like for someone to unpack for me how Disney is--and this is the verbiage--"of the left."
 
Julio3000 said:
For the sake of clarity, I find the ESPN decision profoundly silly.
Click to expand...

BedellBrave said:
Excellent. Just couldn't figure out why you and others wouldn't go there. Sometimes you need to just state something or it looks really weird to others not in the heat of your particular battle. You and stung can carry on.
Click to expand...

Julio gets a ton of respect from me for his willingness to say stuff like this. It's nice to speak with someone who doesn't regurgitate talking points and instead thinks for himself.
 
Hawk said:
Mitch McConnell has 9% approval.

XPaul Ryan 16%.
Click to expand...

What do you think about the political wisdom of attacking the majority?

In one sense, it's probably a lot safer than it looks on its face, because the electoral map is so bad for Ds in '18, so the risk to those majorities is pretty slim. On the other hand, it seems like a weird way for folks who desperately need a win to go about getting one.
 
Jaw said:
Julio gets a ton of respect from me for his willingness to say stuff like this. It's nice to speak with someone who doesn't regurgitate talking points and instead thinks for himself.
Click to expand...

I realize that we don't see eye-to-eye on confederate historiography, but I appreciate your point of view and your willingness to express it in good faith. I respect the heck out of that, and you, too.
 
well, this is embarrassing

United Nations rights panel warns US over racist rhetoric

United Nations human rights experts have called upon the US government and political leaders to "unequivocally and unconditionally" reject and condemn racist hate speech and crimes.

The panel said it was "alarmed" by recent displays of racist violence and, without mentioning US President Donald Trump by name, condemned the "failure at the highest political level" to "unequivocally reject and condemn" such activity.

After the recent violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination asked US authorities to investigate fully and "to address the root causes of the proliferation of such racist manifestations."

The committee -- which monitors states' implementation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination -- said "there should be no place in the world for racist white supremacist ideas or any similar ideologies that reject the core human rights principles of human dignity and equality."

Its decision to issue the statement was taken under its early warning procedure, it said. The United States ratified the convention in 1994.

"We are alarmed by the racist demonstrations, with overtly racist slogans, chants and salutes by white nationalists, neo-Nazis, and the Ku Klux Klan, promoting white supremacy and inciting racial discrimination and hatred," committee chairwoman Anastasia Crickley said.

"We call on the US government to investigate thoroughly the phenomenon of racial discrimination targeting, in particular, people of African descent, ethnic or ethno-religious minorities, and migrants," she said.

CERD also urged the United States to ensure that the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly are not used with the aim of destroying or denying the rights of others, and to guarantee that such rights are not abused in order to promote racist hate speech and crimes. The committee is made up of 18 independent experts from around the world who are elected by states who are party to the convention.

One person was killed and 19 were hurt in Charlottesville on August 12 when a speeding car slammed into a throng of counterprotesters to a "Unite the Right" rally. More than a dozen other injuries were reported in the violence surrounding the rally.

Since then, US President Donald Trump has come under fire from Republicans and Democrats alike over his response to the violence, in which by referring to "many sides" or "both sides" as being responsible, he equated neo-Nazis with their counterprotesters.
 
Gerard Baker, the editor in chief of The Wall Street Journal, has faced unease and frustration in his newsroom over his stewardship of the newspaper’s coverage of President Trump, which some journalists there say has lacked toughness and verve.

Some staff members expressed similar concerns on Wednesday after Mr. Baker, in a series of blunt late-night emails, criticized his staff over their coverage of Mr. Trump’s Tuesday rally in Phoenix, describing their reporting as overly opinionated.

“Sorry. This is commentary dressed up as news reporting,” Mr. Baker wrote at 12:01 a.m. on Wednesday morning to a group of Journal reporters and editors, in response to a draft of the rally article that was intended for the newspaper’s final edition.

He added in a follow-up, “Could we please just stick to reporting what he said rather than packaging it in exegesis and selective criticism?”

---

03U1n.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaw
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top