Florida Republican Gov’t Officials Bend Over Backwards To Tell Everyone That, Yes, Absolutely, They Are Punishing Disney For Its Speech
from the please-play-these-videos-in-court dept
We had mentioned just how pathetically ridiculous it was that the Florida legislature was considering stripping the already unconstitutional Disney theme park exemption fully from the unconstitutional social media bill that was passed, with the help of Disney, just last year. And on Thursday, as expected, the Republicans in Florida’s legislature went ahead and approved that change, as well as another one, stripping Disney of a special provision in Florida law that effectively gives it a kind of sovereign power over all of Disney’s land in Orlando.
So a few quick points on this: (1) the social media bill is dumb and unconstitutional, but the theme park exemption was just the unconstitutional icing on an unconstitutional cake, which only served to highlight just how unconstitutional the whole thing was, so stripping it away is performative nonsense. Disney doesn’t deserve an exemption, but it also doesn’t deserve to have the government punish it for its speech. (2) Same deal with the “Reedy Creek Improvement District” setup, which probably shouldn’t be a thing for Disney. But, again, that’s no excuse to swipe it as punishment. But, most importantly (3) all of the Disney stuff is a misdirection smoke show. Florida politicians, and especially Ron DeSantis want everyone to focus on the faux outrage over Disney, rather than the main purpose of the extra legislative session: to even more excessively gerrymander the state’s districts to completely wipe out two heavily Black districts. That’s the real issue here.
However, gerrymandering is less of a Techdirt topic than free speech, so I did want to go back to the Disney thing. Over the last few months, certainly, we’ve called out politicians, both Democrat and Republican, for this extremely unfortunate trend of threatening companies with potential legislative punishment in response to their speech. Now, most of the time, the politicians (and their often vocal supporters) try to explain that it’s okay if all they are doing is passing a legislative change that should happen. However, we’ve disagreed time and time again: even if you like the legislative proposal, the fact that it’s being done as punishment for speech represents a serious 1st Amendment issue.
At least in most of those cases, though, the politicians in question weren’t quite so dumb as to publicly say that they were doing this entirely as retaliation for speech. It’s usually more of a correlation thing, where the company will do something dumb that politician X doesn’t like, and then politician X immediately announces these performative, grandstanding legislative plans that would punish the company — but they don’t directly say they’re doing it for that reason.
But, this is Florida. And Florida, boy, they do stuff differently down there, don’t they? And in this case, it means that Florida’s Republican politicians are literally bending over backwards to give Disney all the evidence they need to run to court and get these legislative changes declared unconstitutional retaliation. They’re not even trying to do the silly little dance where they pretend there are legitimate reasons for these legislative removes. First up, there was Rep. Randy Fine, when asked by the press if this was retaliation, he just outright admitted of course it was:
Specifically, he compares this to when he punishes his kids for “acting up,” which is just going to play great in front of a judge:
But here’s the issue, when my 14-year-old or my 10-year-old ask for special privileges? They behave! And they don’t expect those special privileges if they act like jerks. So Disney is learning that they are a guest in this state.
So, yeah, great. You’re saying that you’re retaliating against the company for “acting like jerks” by… speaking mildly out about legislation they dislike. Or, more specifically, here’s a politician flat out admitting that he’s punishing a company for its political speech.
But it gets worse. Florida’s Lt. Governor Jeanette Nunez, who earlier in this stupidly ridiculous culture war flat out claimed that Disney’s executives “have no right to criticize legislation by duly elected legislators” and stated directly that she and Governor DeSantis “won’t stand for it.” So, she had already made it clear that she didn’t believe the largest employer in her state even had the right to criticize politicians (spoiler alert: they absolutely do have that right, because contrary to whatever Florida’s GOP thinks, the 1st Amendment and free speech is actually a thing).
However, just to drive the point home about how unconstitutional this retaliation is, and the fact that the ONLY reason it’s being done is because of the company’s political speech, Nunez doubled down on Newsmax (of course) on Thursday, and when asked if Disney took back what it said, would Florida reverse course on this new legislation — she said it would!
I mean the whole segment is stupid, but Newsmax’s Eric Bolling (last seen here filing a SLAPP suit against a reporter) asks a stupid question and Nunez just flat out admits that it’s entirely about Disney’s speech:
Bolling: Is there an opportunity for Disney to change their mind and say, ‘we will disregard this whole ‘woke’ agenda.’ We’ll go back to what we originally dealt with, the state of Florida, and would the governor then say, ‘fine, you can keep your status but we’re gonna keep an eye on you now’? How does this play out for Disney? A lot of people like Disney and they don’t want to not like Disney any more.
Nunez: Sure! And we’ve all been to Disney, those of us with small kids have been to Disney. But they have changed their mantra. They have changed what they espouse. It used to be family values. It used to be entertainment that was age appropriate. And now, based on their own admission, they have a not-so-secret agenda to indoctrinate our youth with topics that are very inappropriate.
First off, that’s absolute nonsense. I mean, the only thing Disney “indoctrinates” kids into is the idea that parents need to take out a 2nd mortgage to afford to take their kids there. But really, just the fact that Nunez responds “Sure!” to the idea that if Disney changes its mind, the whole thing might go away — and that the reason for doing this is because of the things the company “espouses,” means this is an exhibit should Disney decide to go to court over this.
This is why we keep calling out politicians who threaten companies over their speech. Because as they get away with it, it only escalates and escalates. We’re going to see a lot more of this kind of nonsense, and the only way to get it to stop is for the courts to smack down these kinds of things for what they are: the government punishing companies for their political speech.
If you want more details on what these bills actually mean for the state of Florida (it would be an absolute disaster), I cannot recommend anything more than Sarah Rumpf’s deep analysis of the impact of the attack on Disney. It quotes tons of Florida experts, including Republicans, admitting that if Disney loses its status, it would wreak havoc on the state’s finances. Also, just the fact that the government is doing this seems likely to scare off businesses from moving to Florida. Miami has been trying hard to set itself up as a tech hub the last few years, but what tech company wants to move there when DeSantis has made it clear he’ll punish you any way he can if he doesn’t like what you say?
I don’t think we’ve ever said anything nice about Disney here, and I don’t think it necessarily deserves the two benefits that the Florida government gave them in the past at all. But the motive here matters. Making these moves as direct retaliation for Disney’s speech violates the 1st Amendment.
Filed Under: 1st amendment, florida, free speech, jeannette nunez, randy fine, retaliation, ron desantis
Companies: disney
Comments on “Florida Republican Gov’t Officials Bend Over Backwards To Tell Everyone That, Yes, Absolutely, They Are Punishing Disney For Its Speech”
Very Performative
It would not surprise me if the revocations will quietly disappear when the heat of the “Don’t say gay” bill lessens. But by then, the damage has been done to the local economy. As Disney might not be as angry due to not having to pay for road maintenance and other expenses so they might not bring it to court, but other, smaller companies will take note and probably leave, making more issues for maintaining jobs and thus their economy.
It would not surprise me if Florida hits a slump or even a recession, and DeSantis and his party has no-one to blame but themselves.
Re:
It would not surprise me if Florida hits a slump or even a recession, and DeSantis and his party has no-one to blame but themselves.
You vastly underestimate the party of eternal victims, there’s always someone else to blame since the alternative is personal responsibility and that’s just not done.
Re: Re:
In this case, DeSantis will probably blame…
After all, Republicans have never met a situation they couldn’t spin into their being the victim of anyone but themselves.
Re: Re: Re:
‘Yes I picked up the gun by choice. Yes I loaded the bullet by choice. Yes I aimed it at my foot by choice and yes I pulled the trigger by choice, but it’s their fault I’m injured!’
Re: Re: Re:2 Self-targeting footgun
And it’s those Commie CHINESE to blame for inventing gunpowder in the first place!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 ThatOneGuy... Republican?
Did you mean to state a GOP talking point?
It sounds like it, because that’s what the Repubs are saying is happening here.
The conservative/Repub/rightwing/whatever claim is that (1) Disney could have stayed out of Florida state politics; (2) it didn’t; (3) now Disney will be punished. (There are intermediate steps I left out as a tonic to the non-ignorant between 2-3 such as Disney being given 2nd chances and doubling down.)
Whether you feel they’re correct is beside the point. You’re repeating their propaganda.
Re: Re: Re:3 As is often said by others...
Every accusation a confession.
Re: Re: Re:3 In addition:
There are intermediate steps I left out as a tonic to the non-ignorant between 2-3, such as Disney being given 2nd chances to recant their progressive views and refusing to do so because they didn’t believe that someone described as a Conservative would go so far as to violate the First Amendment.
FTFY. YW. ;p
Re: Re: Re:2
Sounds like every Putinbot ever over Ukraine. Oh, wait…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: I think you will be disappointed
ThatOneGuy, I could – maybe even might – be wrong, but I don’t think the right is going to abandon the anti-groomer thing any time soon.
It’s been the most successful propaganda and morale victory the right has had since probably the election of Trump (which faded within about a month).
If anyone can think of one (a huge and undeniable Republican morale/propaganda victory between Trump Inauguration Month and the recent anti-groomer thing), please let me know.
People have latched onto the anti-groomer thing and it gets significantly more sideline support – from both anonymous and open entities – than anti-CRT, and that was pretty successful.
I wish it was the other way around, since CRT/1619/CRT-lite has worse long-term repercussions for the world than Groomerism (and that shit is evil ). But let’s be honest: the kind of people Taylor Lorenz doxxes were never going to attach their open names to a statement as bigoted as “Stop telling White kids to hate themselves, uhhh please?”
Saying “I’m against child molesters and their enablers” is a lot more politically acceptable than “stop bashing Whitey”. (However, certain pockets of the left rightfully perceive the former attitude to be an existential threat to themselves personally. I hope the left at large is dumb enough to let the few actual “man-boy lovers” in their midst (looking at you Lincoln Project fans) continue to dictate rules of engagement; it keeps adding more to the legion of open Groomerists.)
Evidence that anti-Groomerism is a brilliant anti-Left strategy: it’s gotten declared far leftists to openly support corporations.
You know what? I’m probably wrong. Betting on the Republicans to capitalize on small victories by delivering finishing blows and not immediately rolling over for media belly rubs has lost the bettor money nearly every time.
Signs that that calculus might be changing are the that the leftist infiltrators on the right (the Podhoretz National Review pro-war neocon parasite types) are begging Desantis to cease and desist winning. Those here who monitor sources across the spectrum (not just echochamber-approved) know what I’m talkin’ ’bout.
(I just realized I invented the term ‘Groomerism’. Surely parallel construction, so if you see it start popping up anywhere in the culture, I won’t gloat.)
Re: Re: Re:
You do realize that that kinda makes it sound like the anti-groomer thing is just political BS with no foundation in reality, right? I mean, it is, but I just wanna make sure I understand correctly.
Re: Re: I agree
Too bad the Left doesn’t understand this.
Re: Re: complaining about disney? you mean mickey mouse disney
seriously find a new hobby and a shrink disney although now pricey was a life saver to many and a lovely adventure the family remembers and enjoys sounds like youre petty and jealous your mom and dad didnt take you there. pack up your suitcase and go yourself youd be a believer!
Re:
They have Fox News, and see what having your nation’s principal news source rooting for you (or else) does for Putin. Slumps or recessions are nothing (or even a plus) if it is all the fault of your enemies hating your values/nation/whatever.
Re: Re:
…Disney directly owns ABC News (and a host of other media outlets)
Re: Re: Re:
Not Florida’s principal news source.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Now with *Joke Overexplainer!
David, is Florida a monolith, that they have a ‘principal news source’? I get that you’re pretending to not understand the Anon’s point, but that’s neither here nor there.
What I’m saying is, if Floridians are united enough to have a ‘principal news source’ and that source is even as slightly rightwing a source as Fox, it doesn’t bode well for Disney (and therefore any other woke company) in Florida.
An optimistic person might say ‘Disney’s future in Florida is kaput. Fucking move, groomers.’
Wish I could be that guy. Instead, I’ll just have to take my little bursts of perishable and fleeting optimism in watching videos of pedo-enabling censorious slatterns weeping.*
Re: Re: Re:3
Define ‘groomers’, pervert. (Anybody that uses the term ‘groomers’ so over-broadly must be a pervert who’s hoping to see the term fall victim to cancel culture so they can operate without their illegal actions, with children or otherwise, being labelled for what they are.)
Re: Re: Re:4
Nice projection, groomer.
Re: Re: Re:5
I don’t think that means what you think it means.
Re: Re: Re:5
‘Projection’; you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Re: Re: Time to prove Godwin's Law.
“Slumps or recessions are nothing (or even a plus) if it’s thee fault of your enemies hating your values/nation/whatever.”
Which is what a certain charismatic Austrian did in Germany in the early 1930s. “Absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Versailles Treaty or the events that led to its being drafted.”
Re: Re: Re:
That certain Austrian did not invent nationalism or chauvinism. He just explored how far it would go. Turns out way too far.
We have treaties about nuclear weapons. But there is no control of demagoguery, and with 8 billion detonators, it is to be reckoned with.
Re: Re: Re:2
I never said he invented them, I merely pointed out how far such hatred can go when the Legislature allows it. As George Santayana said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3 It gets tiresome, but we muddle through
Did you feel that slight cringe when you had to name the quote author for the tooms and Thads and other dumbbells?
I know that feeling of ‘I wish nuance and subtlety were a thing in Techdirt comments’.
Re: Re: Re:4
They still aren’t gonna fuck you bro.
Re: Re: Re:5
More projection, I see.
Re:
It may be that Disney makes out on the deal. The original problem, back in 1967, was that neither Orange nor Osceola were really able to provide infrastructure or services to something as big as Disney. At the same time, Disney were reluctant to pay full price. The Greedy Creek Improvement District (RCID) allowed them to turn these expenses into tax write-offs with sovereign immunity to reduce liability exposure. It also allowed them to be exempt from most regulation.
Now, if the RCID goes away, the counties will have to pick up the tab for police and fire, and roads, and pretty much everything else. They could do it now, but it will not be cheap for the other property owners in Orange and Osceola.
There remains the interesting question of whether the state or the counties will be on the hook for the outstanding bonds. At the time of issuance, the state promised that the RCID would remain in place until the bonds are repaid, as is standard for most bonds by government entities.
Re:
Nivito’s kitchen sink is the perfect addition to any modern kitchen. Its sleek, minimalist design is perfect for creating a clean and uncluttered look in your kitchen. The sink is made from high-quality stainless steel, which makes it durable and easy to clean. It comes with a waste disposal unit and an integrated drainer, making it easy to keep your kitchen tidy. The sink is also available in different sizes, so you can choose the perfect one for your kitchen. With its stylish design and practical features, Nivito’s kitchen sink is the perfect choice for any modern home. nivito.com
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Its There In The Text
…or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, or take away the special interest tax privileges afforded to a mega-corporation.
Re:
One day you’ll realize that legislating those privileges away based on the speech of those who benefit from those privileges is an attack on that speech with the intent of silencing it.
But it is not this day.
Re: Re:
I highly doubt that… this IS Koby you’re talking to after all!
Re: Correct: it's there in the text.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
You were saying?
Re:
or take away the special interest tax privileges afforded to a mega-corporation
You’ll really lose your shit if we decide to do it to churches. Frankly, I don’t like what they’ve got to say about politics since they don’t pay any taxes at all…
Re:
So, Koby, you cool if the Democrats remove the tax exempt status of churches because they’re too supportive of Republicans? Based on your statement above, sounds like it.
Re: Re:
Pfft. How naïve you are Mike, expecting principles and consistency from Koby.
Re: Re: Re:
Oh, I expect consistency from Koby: whenever people ask him a question we all know he can’t answer honestly… he consistently disappears.
Re: Re: Re:2
I sit corrected.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 I'm doing a lot of agreeing today
I agree Mike is correct that Koby often ‘disappears’ when asked questions.
Personally I’d guess that Koby doesn’t return to read comments much or at all. Masnick appears to attribute it to ‘he can’t answer honestly’ (though he means ‘won’t’, not ‘can’t’).
Indifference or cowardice, doesn’t particularly matter why Koby does it, but I do find it equally obnoxious – and I agree with about 51% of what Koby says.
I’m not Koby, but here’s a rightwinger who fully endorses taxing churches. I’m not doing any wordplay here, either. I mean taxing churches the same way Mike meant it – if they make a profit, they pay tax, and there are no tax deductions for charity.
Something like what Anton Lavey advocated. (Wonder if anyone here has read his work beyond the ‘beginner’ stuff. Techdirt commenters seem to despise rebels and iconoclasts, but I am curious how many readers occasionally step out of the bubble of Safe People ™ .)
I personally would love to apply the tax to only Christian, Judaic, and Moslem – the big 3 – but there’s no current feasible way of separating a subcategory, denomination, or offshoot of those – LDS being an example (they call themselves Christian, but few are dumb enough to believe it) – to legitimately unconnected religions practiced by smaller groups, like Buddhism, Hinduism, and Asatru.
At a minimum, the grifting would be tough to weed out. But maybe a good starting point for an effective anti-deception campaign would be ‘if you get or claimed to get your main ideology from the Old/New Testament, the Torah/Talmud, or the Koran yesterday then you’re getting taxed tomorrow no matter what you say today .’
An interesting thought experiment, but a moot one… so far.
I don’t recall ever seeing Koby say he’s Christian or even religious. If anyone knows for sure I’m wrong, please let me know. I wonder if people are just jumping to the conclusion he is because you dislike Koby and therefore hang the millstone that is Christianity around his neck.
(Reminder that Christianity is the best friend leftists ever had on the right. So please continue to bash away.)
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
You are right to ask Koby for some common sense, he seems to be the wise owl among this flock of sewer pigeons. Maybe Disney should stick to offering a product that people want to buy, and let the people of Florida decide how to educate their own children. Koby said that, or something like it. You could learn a lot from Koby. I know he’s too modest to blow his own horn, but hey, getting Mike to bow down to him is a start. Open your Mind to Koby Therapy! Go read all his old posts! Repeat until you come to your senses!
Re: Re: Re:
Even if you disagree with the legal status of corporations in re: free speech, the people who run those corporations are people—and they’re free to say whatever the fuck they want about whatever they want.
Re: Re: Re:
Fuck off, Koby’s sockpuppet.
Re: Re: Re:
That’s not a wise owl, it’s a dead parrot*.
* (and so clumsily nailed to its perch that it’s hanging upside-down).
Re: Re: Re:
You can just ask him out if you want to blow him publicly.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 I just praised the Left and Mike Masnick and provided pro-Gay source.
http://www.newnownext.com/not-everyone-antigay-is-secretly-gay/08/2019/
It’s no longer okay to call antigay people closeted deviants or hidden homosexuals.
Like the very recent turn of the left wing towards supporting corporations and ‘reconsidering’ the importance of free speech, it is no longer an acceptable tactic for anyone on the left.
One thing I sincerely give the Left credit for: when their intellectuals make verboten a formerly acceptable tactic, technique, or procedure, they fall in line.
The countersignaling you’re doing here with your ‘tee hee, you do fellatio’ is proof that, while Techdirt is censorious, they don’t delete comments.
Know how I know? If Masnick deleted comments, yours are exactly the kind he’d delete.
Re: Re: Re:3
Every accusation, a confession.
Re: Re: Re:3 Countersignal right into his DM's
Son you seem to misunderstand the whole situation. The only people in their right mind who would praise Koby must be trying to fuck him. I was just trying to help give you the courage to act out your very obvious fantasies.
The rest of that comment though?
The fuck you on about?
PS my comment, unlike yours, didn’t get hidden. 🙂
Re: Re: Re:3
Ummm… I don’t think anyone said that person was antigay.
Re:
And Disney STILL has the right to criticize this move.
Not like you care, anyway.
Maybe all it takes is Disney to move TO CA…
Re: Re:
Disney are already in California. They opened Disneyland in Anaheim there about 16 years before opening Disney World in Lake Buena Vista in Florida. The only downside is that people might miss the Epcot Center if Disney are forced out because DeSantis et al. have violated the First Amendment.
The only thing worse than corporations are politicians who make me root in favor of corporations. Like, I don’t even want to be on Disney’s side here (kill The Mouse, take his house), but these Florida dipshits aren’t giving me much of a choice.
Re: If the worst don't have rights then neither do the best
To take some of the sting out you could see it as less rooting for the company so much as rooting for their rights, rights which are the same for everyone such that if they can be abridged for one they can be abridged for anyone, even companies you do support.
Re: Re:
Well, Disney’s “rights” here are very much about very special privileges being taken away. That still does not make for much of an “see this as a problem of everybody’s rights” angle. Of course what is easy to overlook in all this mess is that the Republicans are not actually bothered about Disney speaking up for gay people: that is considered sort of performative.
And it’s not actually what it is about. What this is about is much more severe: Disney announced to stop political contributions in FL, so FL announced to stop political favors.
All the rest is smokescreen. Disney stops the bribes, Disney stops receiving favors. Republicans could care less whether or not Disney’s CEO fornicated male unicorns in Miami town square while reciting the Kama Sutra backwards or not. But stopping contributions: that’s a red line.
Re: Re: Re:
And Florida citizens are going to get fucked. Or did you actually think Disney was going to pay all those property taxes that are going to be raised by the passage of that legislation today?
Re: Re: Re:2
I was under the impression California was gonna pay for it.
Re: Re: Re:3
This is the upcoming Trump, so probably Florida’s equivalent of Mexico is going to pay for it. I am not really sure whether that would be California or Cuba.
Re: Re: Re:2
Disney currently pays $105 Million per year in property taxes to its surrounding county government.
Quite a bizarre political setup crafted in back rooms decades ago.
Re: Re: Re:2
Maybe on the bonds, but that is probably only about $100 per resident. Maybe a bit less if some of the bonds can be paid from utility revenues rather than taxes.
The ones who should really expect to get it, long term, are Orange and Osceola residents who suddenly get to pick up the services for which Disney (Greedy Creek Improvement District, or RCID) taxed itself. That will continue more or less forever.
It should be interesting to watch. Interesting, as in ``may you live in interesting times”.
Not even pretending anymore
Well, that’s… nice of them to make undeniably clear just how much they loathe the first amendment I suppose. I’ve long thought that if you’re going to be a terrible person the least you can do is be honest about it and they’re certainly doing that.
DeSantis is getting what he wanted from this
Whether or not this stands up in court, along with the bill he signed today (HB 7, the so called anti-woke law) this has his name all over the country as it makes national news. If this law (along with the anti-woke law, the don’t say gay law, the attempts to control social media companies law) fails in court he gets to rail against activist judges and gain even more support amongst the population that are just looking for verification that they are being oppressed by the “elites” (all the while voting for people who attended Harvard, Yale, and live in country clubs) and given permission to direct their hate to marginalized people they can feel superior to and justified in their hatred against.
All of this is just dog in the manger politics – because certain groups of people are now being treated more equally, we’ll just burn everything down to gain power.
This move will cost the taxpayers in Orlando and Kissimmee more than it will Disney, but since they vote mostly democrat, that may be part of the appeal for the party of punishing anyone who votes against us. I can’t wait to find out how much money our state government will waste fighting all of these recent laws in court.
All of this is to boost his inevitable run for POTUS in 2024 where he’ll most likely win.
Re:
What’s hilarious about that particular canard is how Republicans have spent decades stacking the courts with conservative judges so they don’t have to legislate. It’s easier for judges to make new law via judicial precedent than it is for Republicans to control Congress and the presidency in a way that lets them pass whatever laws they want. “Every accusation, a confession” couldn’t apply more perfectly.
Re:
The repercussions will likely be broader than anyone expects — this and similar acts are basically a clearly broadcast signal to the corporate world that Florida is an unreliable and unstable place to do business, where entities will be punished for “culture wars” and trivial political posturing, regardless of law, constitutional rights, or even long-established beneficial relationships.
Some will leave if they can (Disney itself may simply be forced to leave simply because this transfer of infrastructure/operational responsibilities will effectively make it impossible for Disney to maintain its trademark, perfect fantasy, “Disney experience”). Other parties will simple decide that investing in the State of Florida is just too risky to be worth the gamble.
Re: Re:
More likely, Disney will simply have to accept that Orange and Osceola taxpayers will have to heavily subsidize their operations. As a Disney stock holder, I cannot be too upset about these things. My views might differ if I owned property in Orange or Osceola.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Given a situation where both Trump and Desantis throw hats in the ring
I am looking forward during the Republican presidential primaries to watch the left drop the mask a bit.
You will know this is happening when (most of) the left will pull punches on Trump and concentrate fires on Desantis.
(Words that may come back to bite me: I give credit to the far left that they won’t go along with this hypocrisy. I bet even Stephen Stone won’t go along with Lincoln Project-type “Trump is a much more of a terrible person, but Desantis isn’t a self-sabotaging narcissistic blowhard do-nothing like Trump…Trump is evil, but Desantis is effective…so everyone support Trump for now!” hypocrisy. Masnick definitely will.)*
The Stupid Party will not capitalize on the aforementioned blatant Democrat hypocrisy, of course. They’re not called the Stupid Party for a love of winning.
So far , Desantis has a spotless public record vis-a-vis moral scandals or personal relationships/problems that have come back to haunt him. He’s a politician, so he definitely has skeletons.
Whether Desantis is incompetent enough to ever let his enemies find or use ’em is another story. He may be another super-slick master at sidelining scandals, ala Joseph Kennedy.
The last time the left was forced to attack a rightwing presidential candidate on his/her policies and politics alone was way back in ’92. It was Patrick Buchanan, and I think we all know why he received special attention. He had zero skeletons. Desantis surely has ’em – whether he’s another moron like Cawthorn or Gaetz, guess we’ll find out.
(Just saw the Lloyd Bentsen quote I’m humorously parodying was 1988. Feels like it was just yesterday.)
Sorry for everyone that I had to overexplain the joke by name-dropping Bentsen. But you know how stupid most of your anon commenters are. (The only named Techdirter I can see being dumb enough to admit such ignorance aloud is Thad, the Retarded Mascot of Techdirt.)
Re: Re:
At least clean up a little if you’re going to let me live rent-free in your head.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re: "See what I did, Mike? Didya? Didya see what I did, Mike? Did ya?"
I gave you a sincere compliment. In your White Knighting for Masnick, you might’ve missed it. I’d do what the anon commenters on your side do and accuse you of being a closet homosexual, but I’m not a liar and don’t think your simping for him is connected to your queerness. (It’s just general embarrassing bootlicking, not gay embarrassing bootlicking.)
The avoidance of discussions and information exchanges in place of snarky dopamine non-answers is one of Techdirt comment sections’ worst traits. I wonder if Masnick laments it. I doubt it, given that almost every Masnick comment I’ve read is just a bunch of frustrated, angry cursing and insults.
Masnick makes it clear through his actions and non-actions that he prefers the high-hostility, low-information tone here. (Also why Techdirt is considered a hive of Masnick’s Sock Puppets; whether it’s actually true, there’s no evidence to the contrary.)
Cue the “fuck off and die I hope your children get leukemia, and don’t tone police me! (Hey, why are these comments sections just five guys taking turns high-fiving each other? What can we do to get more reader engagement?”.
Re: Re: Re:2
lmao
Re: Re: Re:2
Shhh honey the adults are talking.
Re: Re: You forgot to say *woke*
Can you please find a synonym for left? You sound like a drunken broken record. But then again that’s generally what you RWNJ sound like.
So, can Disney issue bonds, do a ton of infrastructure work this year and let Florida pick up the bill next year?
Re: Disney Bond
Disney will lose $1B in bond debt as of last month if the special privileges are revoked. The dept will revert to Orange county, a rather large, soon to be unhappy, voting block.
Re:
Disney will lose $1B in bond debt as of last month if the special privileges are revoked. The dept will revert to Orange county, a rather large, soon to be unhappy, voting block.
Re: Re:
No, Orange County did not invoke nor co-sign the ‘Reedy Creek Improvemeny District’ (RCID) debt and is not legally liable for it.
(the bond holders may well suffer the bad debt loss)
RCID is a sovereign local government entity, as established by the Florida State Legislature.
The entire RCID setup is outageously unconstitutional; it was a staggering sweetheart deal between Disney and corrupt state politicians.
Disny has been manipulating Florida politicians successfully for over half a century, but got slightly bit this time. Disney will continue to prosper.
DeSanstis is wrong to punish free speech, but such government behavior is routine everywhere, though on a much more subtle level
Re: Re: Re:
Actually due to FL law the county will assume the debt of any special improvement district they take over. The FL government’s own analysis say so. https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022C/4C/Analyses/2022s00004C.ca.PDF page 4 paragraph 5
Re: Re: Re:2
… that’s a dead link you referenced.
Please directly reference the official Florida Statute you believe applies, rather than some obscure/unknown Canadian analysis of it.
Also, the RCID is an exceedingly complex legal entity with many special exemptions.
For example, RCID is exempt from all State Regulations except elevator inspections.
RCID dissolution does not take effect for another year.
Re: Re: Re:3
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0100-0199/0189/Sections/0189.072.html
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0100-0199/0189/Sections/0189.076.html
Re: Re: Re:4
Those links work; however, there’s nothing in the dense legalese that requires Orange County to assume RCID debt.
Governor DeSantis publicly stated this week that RCID dissolution would not increase taxes in Orange County.
Re: Re: Re:5
DeSantis also thinks that it’s OK to draft legislation to punish a company (and, by extension, the people in charge of it) for its speech, so you’ll have to forgive me if I don’t believe a word out of his mouth.
Re: Re: Re:6
There five words you can believe when he says them:
“Agree with me or else”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7 "Agree with me or else" is why we elect them
Please clarify: do you consider this a bad thing?
Don’t you want the elected leaders you support to at least act with this mindset? Say you voted for Joe Biden (I’m not accusing you of such, this is just a fr’instance); don’t you want Biden to act like ‘agree with me, get carrot; disagree with me, get stick.’
In answering, keep in mind I’m asking about the mindset alone. I’m not talking about what those carrots/sticks might be. Don’t distract with talk of methods, I’m asking about mindset.
I think everyone wants that. Unless we’re talking about unimportant things where we can agree to disagree with no significant negatives to society (sportsball team XYZ is better than sportsball team ABC shite), all but the extremely intellectually disabled want their favored politician to a) have convictions and b) enforce those convictions.
Now, there’s a fear of admitting as much that convictionless worms have yet to overcome. (You’ll know it when you see it, like the response some of you are typing right now and will consider sending.)
Re: Re: Re:8
Ask the Ukrainians just how bad that mindset is.
Re: Re: Re:8
Yes.
No, I don’t. Why would I?
Again, no, and I don’t understand why you think any of us would.
I mean, the method is an important consideration, but regardless, I wrote my response with this in mind.
You think wrongly.
No, they don’t, at least on b. They want their favored politician to consistently act according to those convictions, but that is entirely separate from enforcing those convictions on others.
There are also times when I wish certain people I voted for would be more willing to compromise on certain convictions, so a is not necessarily true, either.
Honestly, I just don’t understand the mindset of punishing those simply for not agreeing with you, even if the issue is very important and consequential. Actions are one thing, but failure to agree is entirely separate. I simply don’t understand why you think that’s nearly universal.
Re: Re: Re:7
I don’t believe that either, a lunatic like him will ensure that “or else” will happen anyway even if you obey.
Re: Re: Re:5
Well, if DeSantis said so, you know it must be true.
😛
Re: Re: Re:3
Weird, the PDF loads up perfectly fine in my browser. Maybe it’s something on your end.
Re: Re: Re:3
Actually, that’s not a dead link, and the fact that your device doesn’t allow you to read PDF documents (for whatever reason) doesn’t make it one. Also, the fact that the letters ‘ca’ are in the link doesn’t make the document it leads to a ‘Canadian analysis’ of anything. I’ve downloaded the document and read it on my (up to) 14-year-old Android smartphone and saw that it’s the actual text of the Florida statute.
Re: Re: Re:2
There is a problem with the theory that Greedy Creek Improvement District (RCID) debt will transfer to local general purpose govt. RCID is present in two counties. Do you have a plan to apportion the debt?
Also, the bonds are generally backed by a state promise not to dissolve the district. It is possible that the state will get to pay, rather than leaving Orange and Osceola to divide.
And, indeed, Orange and Osceola may have a right to not pay anyway, since their voters did not approve the bonds. There is certainly no ``full faith and credit” of either county implicated in the RCID bonds.
Re: Re: Re:
Which constitution, and what about it?
Re: Re: Re:2
LOLwut? You’re commenting on an American blog and you’ve never heard of the Constitution of the United States? (-_Q)
Re:
The recourse here, is simple.
WHY loose money.
Close up.
And Orange County will have the largest Unemployment in all of Florida. Soon to be all of the USA.
Re: Re:
Why would they lose money? Disney keeps all the revenue, all they lose is $1-2B in bond debt, the cost of maintaining roads, waterways etc., the cost of operating emergency services, and they even get a lower property tax rate out of the deal. Looks to me like Disney makes out like a bandit on this deal. The only ones that might have to close up shop are the counties involved. I wonder what happens to responsibility for that bond debt if the counties declare bankruptcy?
Re: Re: Re:
Should not be an issue. The bonds are not backed by the full faith and credit because Orange and Osceola voters never approved them. Expect the bondholders to look to the state, which pledged that the RCID would continue to exist so long as its bonds were outstanding.
Fight for ?? Speech?
Love this idea of freedom of speech.
Then Complaining about FREEDOM of speech.
And a Lt, gov. talking about indoctrination? From Disney?
22 years of republicans, and no one before had problems with Disney.
Might want to read her Bio.
https://www.flgov.com/lieutenant-governor-jeanette-nunez/
HOw many jobs does a Lt. Gov. need? Not counting her own?
Disney should very publicly put all future expansions “on hold” while they “investigate alternative real estate opportunities and evaluate whether the environment is conducive to future development of Disney properties in the state of Florida.” Let these idiots panic a little more. They totally aren’t going anywhere, but as long as this performative battle is raging, let’s make sure the public sees just what DeSantis and his puppet legislature could cost them.
Considering DeSantas had signed said bill into law..
lawsuit from Disney in 3…2…1…
Let's all join the Club
R-O-N
D-E-S
A-N-T-I-S
Ron DeSantis!
(Donald Trump)
Seems like they are going out of their way to get the bill cancelled in court. GQP gets into the news with the bill and then looses in court. They got the headlines and that is what they want with out really changing the Disney special district.
Re: This ^
So it sounds to me like DeSantis’ supporters will get to eat the unconstitutional cake of DeSantis’ performative nonsense, and Disney will sue, and win, and get to eat the unconstitutional icing of their bizarre benefits, too.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Absolutely love how everyone is wrapping themselves in the cause célèbre flag. While Filipkowski may genuinely support the Ukrainian cause, adding the flag to his twitter handle is pure virtue signaling.
Re:
Would you prefer he vice signal by supporting Russia?
Re:
Ah yes classic stop liking things I don’t like!
Well if they just play nice, we’ll undo this before it take effect.
One can hope that Disney will read the tea leaves and decide that staying in the red tide, science hating, what sea level rise, damn the dead humans keep it open state is a bad idea.
Huh they own a shit ton of expensive property & some of the last green spaces, surely they can find buyers.
They can ignore the bond debt, stop collecting taxes and paying the taxes for all their neighbors.
Its obvious the states going to continue to be a fascist wonderland & it might be time for the Happiest Place On Earth to take their happy elsewhere before Deathsantis tries to seize it to make Trumpland.
A state where 2 white men can illegally vote & hardly get a slap, but a black woman got 5 years. She never intended to vote illegally… the white guys said they set out to vote illegally. And justice for whites…
And hey lets gerrrymander race out of being an issue.
If we dilute their votes, we don’t have to listen to them complaining anymore. They won’t manage to get enough voice to matter in anything & we can resume our plan to be a destination for older white folk and non threatening cuban housekeepers.
Reap what you sow
That people aren’t more upset about this is directly due to the idiots who scream “speech has consequences”. The fools who bleat that have paved the way.
If a normal everyday person can have their life destroyed because speech vigilantes became upset at an expressed opinion or truth, then why should a behemoth corporation NOT have a special privilege revoked for doing the same?
You know and I know that this particular situation is different, but condoning and encouraging “speech has consequences” leads inevitably to folks accepting that this is the way it should be.
Good luck convincing the normies.
Re:
Would you prefer we say “speech shouldn’t have consequences”? Because speaking even the most innocuous speech (e.g., “I liked Avengers: Endgame”) has consequences (e.g., people agreeing with, disagreeing with, or ignoring you). Cause and effect—every action has a reaction.
Re: Re:
Rather pointless to go there. I’d prefer to see the reply as an attempt at humor, but i don’t get it if that’s the case. Endgame did kinda suck, though.
Either way, so be it.
As used nearly universally, “consequences” means non-negligible negative repercussions, justifiable or not, and that is of course the definition to which i was referring.
i would say speech that contains true threats, defamation, and/or the conscious incitement of likely, imminent, violence should have consequences as above defined.
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, speech can have consequences.
In this instance we have an entity who voiced their disagreement to what the government did (or proposed to do), and the consequence was that the government went out of their way to punish them.
So your stance is evidently that the government should punish political speech and opinions that you don’t agree with, which also means you don’t think the 1A is very important.
For all the screaming from conservatives and republicans how they are “silenced”, when they try to silence a detractor in an extremely public way you are just fine with it.
Simply put, you are all for government censorship when it suits you.
Re:
There’s one hell of a difference between saying, “I believe that sex and gender are immutable and unchangeable,” on a forum of equally unscientific peers and claiming that a trans man is a woman right to his face. But if you’re one of those unscientific ignoramuses…
Re:
FYI, there’s one hell of a difference between saying, “I believe that sex and gender are immutable and unchangeable,” on a forum filled with equally unscientific peers and claiming that a trans man is a deluded woman right to the guys face. I guess you must be amongst the predjudiced group I first described…
Re:
This isn’t difficult: “Speech has consequences” means social consequences. People may shun you or refuse to do business with you.
But what it CANNOT mean is that the government punishes you for that speech. That’s what the 1st Amendment prevents.
Re: Wee bit of a difference there
If someone can’t tell the difference between society imposing consequences for speech and the government imposing consequences for speech that’s kinda a ‘them’ problem.
Re:
Feeling a little schadenfreude? A little smug maybe? Like you are pointing out yet another example of the left’s hypocrisy?
Yes? Then go back and actually read the article, because, well, bless your heart littlecupcakes.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Not speaking for Cupcakes, but your point was poor.
Masnick himself provides the best example of the leftist hypocrisy you say doesn’t exist in the article.
Masnick said the RCID “…probably shouldn’t be a thing for Disney. But, again, that’s no excuse to swipe it…”
No other option but to infer that he means “the RCID is a bad thing, a privilege that Disney was given by Florida politicians in the 1960s, and it should be revoked. Just not yet. It makes a conservative look good, and makes us look too blatantly pro-Big Business and too obviously anti-voter.”
Shorter version is “they shouldn’t have it, but don’t take it away.”
If the Reedy Creek special privilege is a bad thing, it should be revoked, period. To say otherwise means you have a hidden agenda. Charitably, a pro-Disney stance could just be typical corporate leftist bootlicking (Techdirt’s raison d’etre is what the evidence suggests). Uncharitably, it could be interpreted as stemming from much darker motives; there’s a reason Disney is getting this punishment, after all. The smart pro-Disneyites better hope Americans attribute it to the former. (Why this “we stand with The Groomers” position the left is hellbent on taking is a severe strategic error.)
A favorite analogy here on Techdirt is the broken clock. Saying “this broken clock is showing the correct time right now, and we think that’s wrong” is as dumb a stance as it sounds. (Please keep doing it, leftists.)
Re: Re: Re:
Leftist corporate bootlicking? I thought the leftist were: the party of cancel culture, socialist, communist, Marxist… You know, trying to destroy capitalism and America?
Disney has been slow, hesitant and pretty late to the game in speaking up marginalized people. This isn’t so much about defending Disney as it speaking up about the government punishing someone for expressing their constitutionally protected views.
And gee what a surprise, more utterly stupid (and I wish I could come up with a better way to get within range of how epically ignorant the right is on the subject of grooming, but nothing is nearly strong enough) fear mongering coming from hippocritical moral degenerates on the right. Make up a bogeyman that’s going to get the children. Spend prescious time telling tales of this fake monster, and how the left/democrats/liberals are out laying children flavored candies like a breadcrumb trail right up to wherever the children gather. Every fucking election cycle.
First, the more society represses healthy, ordinary discussions about sex and withholds information that everyone has a human right to know, the higher the occurance of all sex crimes, the higher the spread of STI, the more unplanned pregnancies, the lower the gender equality, which means the lower the quality of life, especially for women and children. The fact that about half of the states do not require comprehensive, scientifically accurate sex education be taught without exception to all students before highschool is actively causing harm to generations of people, all because of a bunch of uptight controlling idiots are abusing religion and government like a spiked mace to beat their corrupted morals into everyone else.
First, if you think this law will in any remote or teensy tiny way prevent a teacher from grooming your child, you are a idiot. If you think your child’s teacher would try to groom your child if it wasn’t for this law, you are an idiot who has apparently does nothing to protect you child from someone you think is a sexual predator. If you think that an entire classroom can be groomed with class discussions, you are profoundly ignorant; a key component of grooming is making an individual child feel special, finding ways to isolate them from others, and get them to tell you specific information in order to use it later when intimidating or coercing them. Groomers look for kids without a lot of friends, not much confidence, without attentive or supportive families. These people are predators and they select specific targets because they cannot maintain enough control over a large group of children.
And the secrecy, discomfort and taboo around the subject of sex, which comes from generations of the same stupid message that sex is bad and dirty, is used by these same scumbags to maintain silence. Kids that can’t articulate what happened because they dont even know the proper names of parts of their own bodies. Kids that have learned to associate parts of their bodies, or certain subjects/phrases with shame. Kids that are told not to question authority, that they don’t have any say over their own body, who’s pain or discomfort is ignored or dismissed. Who don’t understand a reaction their body had and is ashamed or embarrassed.
There was no curriculum in Florida or anywhere else in the US that teaches the mechanics of human sex/sexual activity in elementary school, let alone 2nd graders. Kids don’t even get an explanation of puberty and all of the anatomy until 5th grade, which is too late and parents can still opt out in most places. And sorry but no, the parents “rights” to withhold information do not supercede the child’s right to know about their own body. It’s not about giving school (government) power over parenting decisions, it’s about respecting the rights and needs of children, so fuck off with noise. Parents that don’t want their kids to know about their own bodies are not supported on religious grounds either. Learning about puberty and sex in school is not taking it away from parents either, they can and should teach their own expectations and morals at home. Lessons in school can generate those necessary talks, and allow them to focus on the emotional, social, spiritual aspects of sex without the uncomfortable attempts to explain the physical parts. It should all be taught, gradually and age appropriately by 5th grade, just like it’s done in Western Europe. Kids who have accurate information, people they can ask questions and get answers cannot be so easily manipulated and shamed into secrecy. And they are still innocent children without sex being a poorly kept secret from them.
Instead of shaking off centuries of unnecessary shame and trying something other than the same failed garbage, we double down on shameful stupidity. This “parents choice” or don’t say gay law doesn’t actually do either, and it doesn’t change formal curriculum, or do anything prevent grooming. What it does is create landmines for teachers. They have to tiptoe around answering certain questions, which crushes inquisitive and rich learning environment and creates a barrier, where the teacher is yet another adult not taking them seriously. It prevents teachers from addressing bullying that involves slinging certain homophobic phrases and accusations; it prevents the teacher from affirming to an LGBTQ child that they are worthy and deserving of dignity. This means that they have to be extremely careful leading pretend play activities,or even having a dress up box; what if a boy wants to wear the princess dress or be the nurse, does the teacher allow it or not? What if a girl want to read a boys character in a play? What if the teacher doesn’t object, but another student does, citing that girls’s can’t be boys or vice versa, does that kid get to decide what another child can or can’t do? And what if a kid opens up to the teacher about anything in the verboten subject, like having a crush on someone of the same sex, but asks the teacher to keep their confidence? Instead of teachers making decisions based on what is in the best interest of the child in the current situation, they have turn away kids that need more trusted adults, let gender stereotypes restrict imagination. All because a bunch of jackasses can’t come up a platform that people like, so they make up scary stories and bullshit acts of heroism to save the kids from non-existent threats and nitwits trying to analyze textbooks and children’s literature who have no qualifications to make any useful contributions to the conversation. The fucking right these days, dumb and dangerous.
Re:
We get it, you love censorship.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
The people of Florida have SPOKEN. They have no interest in what the executives of a foreign corporation based in a foreign country (CA) think about educating infants about sexuality. Get The Fuck Out of Florida if you don’t like our laws. Disney is a great start. To the rest of you idiots here at Techdirt, Get the Fuck out of America, you don’t belong here. Go form your own transexual culture on the moon, or Mars. That would be fine. The people of Earth have no use for you fucking weirdos, deviants and mentally ill assholes. Go Florida Voters!
Re: So much to unpack
Yes, because there’s nothing less American than standing up for freedom and the bill of rights. You nailed that one, champ.
Says the person who is for some reason obdessed about genitalia for some reason.
As if a gerrymandered legislature is representative of the Florida Body Politic, let alone massive voter suppression for which Florida is notorious.
Goddammit, you’re a pathetic clown.
Re: Re:
As if a gerrymandered legislature is representative of the Florida Body Politic, let alone massive voter suppression for which Florida is notorious.
‘Go Florida voters! No not those voters. Or those voters. Only the ones that I like dammit!’
Re:
I see the InfoWars contingent found this article.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Stone's anti-corporate bona fides
“Grrrr, I hate supporting Big Business capitalists. And the list of corporations and businesses I do support (Pfizer, Porhhub, Google, Microsoft, CNN, Disney, MSNBC, Twitter, YouTube, Reddit, Netflix, Facebook, Zoom, Nike, NFL, Ben & Jerry’s, Porhhub, Target, Pinterest, Merck, , Porhhub, Coca-Cola, Bank of America, Amazon, Goldman Sachs, Gawker, Starbucks, Porhhub…there are only like 300 or 400 more) is way shorter than the ones I don’t, seriously, trussst me you guyzz!
Like, right this minute I can’t find my list of businesses I don’t grovel for, but believe me, the list is like so long for real.
Seriously, I know it looks like I do whatever Wall Street tells me to, but like I’m like literally so anti-capitalist you guyz. Grr I hate those jerks.
You believe me, right guyz!? Uh, guyz?
Hey, where are you going?!”
Re: Re: Re:
You’re not as smart as you think you are.
(Also: “guyz”? This ain’t the ’90s, bro.)
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 You're doing anti-capitalism wrong.
Every time I see this cartoon, I think the same thing: this could’ve been so much better at making the cartoonist’s point. It’s just weak propaganda for a side who’re usually experts. At least the art is good, even if the message could be stronger.
The left simply can’t escape one of the corners it’s painted itself into over the last decade; they want to be the outsider rebels, but all their political pronouncements agree right down the line with the major corporations, the federal government, the mainstream media, educational institutions, etc.
I understand why you’re going “hey bro, look over there BRO, not over here. Son, don’t make me uncomfortable by pointing out I’m an Organization Man all the way. Brah, my ego is tied to my self image as different, cuz! Bro. Dude. Son.” It’s because for every company you truly do oppose (I assume Gab, Gettr, BitChute, etc), there are 50 or 100 others you grovel for.
I don’t associate the ‘guyz’ thing with the 1990s, but it isn’t the first time I’ve proven ‘behind the times’ when it comes to what’s cool/uncool.
(Here, I’ll save someone time: “LOL dude thats knot the only thing your behind the times with son bro. Your like stone age and like cro-mangum and stuff, son.”)
Re: Re: Re:3
You don’t even know what the point is, given the rest of your babble. But since you need it explained to you: The only way we can more fully participate in a capitalist society is by enriching the corporations that are destroying society—even as we decry those corporations, often by using products we bought from those corporations (e.g., ripping into Apple while using an iPhone). It seems hypocritical on the surface, but when you dig past the surface-level understanding of a Mr. Gotcha, you’ll realize that it’s less people being hypocritical assholes and more a survival mechanism for modern living. People can enrich corporations without being happy about doing so.
I grovel for no corporation. Any loyalty I may give to one—perceived or real—goes only as far as the quality of its products. Anything else is situational and dependent on numerous other factors.
While I may occasionally end up rooting for a corporation in a given situation, that’s less about being a stan for said corporation and more about rooting against a bad legal outcome or whatever. Rooting for Disney against DeSantis’s bullshit doesn’t make me a Disney stan; hell, I have lots of issues with Disney (not the least of which is how much of our pop culture iconography it currently owns). All it does is make me someone who recognizes that for all of Disney’s problems, DeSantis is the worse of the two “sides” in this bullshit.
Re: Re: Re:4 That's what, number 19?
Hey blueballs how was the last 5150 hold?
Re: Re: Re:
I’m cracking up, why did you list Pornhub repeatedly? Are you that uptight that you think accusing an adult male (or anyone for that matter) of watching porn is offensive? Are you hoping someone will ask you for examples of non corporate small time porn sites so that you can demonstrate what a porn snob you are?
Why is Ben & Jerry’s in there, because they are Jewish, or because they spoke up against Israel?
Oh, and you’ll keep Target out of mouth if you know what’s good for you.
Re: Re: Re:
I’d just like to go through the list.
I know of no evidence that Stephen has supported them.
First, I didn’t realize that that was a big corporation.
Second, to the extent Stephen supports them, it appears to be with regards to their rights under 1A and §230.
Third, you repeat this one three times, so that kinda inflates the numbers a bit.
Only to the extent of supporting the rights they have (esp. under 1A, §230, and the DMCA), noting the lack of good evidence of any anti-conservative bias on Google’s part, and the fact that moderation at scale is impossible to do well.
Don’t know what you’re talking about. When has he supported Microsoft?
Insofar as supporting their 1A rights and against false accusations that certain stories they wrote are false or baseless.
Again, no idea when this supposedly happened.
Same as CNN.
Insofar as there has been no good evidence of actual anti-conservative bias on their platform (if anything, it’s the opposite) as well as their rights and the fact that moderation at scale is impossible to well.
Same as Google, only Stephen has actually been more critical of YouTube specifically than Google (or Alphabet) in general or Google Search in particular.
Same as Google, with the addition that Reddit itself does almost no moderation, instead leaving it to the moderators of individual subreddits.
I don’t know when he has done so.
Same as Twitter.
Again, don’t know what you’re referring to.
See previous.
See previous.
See previous.
See previous.
See previous.
Never heard of them.
Again, when has this happened?
Only regarding their rights.
When has this happened?
Only regarding their rights.
When has this happened?
So, basically, for most of them I have no idea when you think Stephen supported them, and of the ones he appears to have supported at all, it’s only with regards to their legal rights and (for some) whether or not moderation can’t be done well at scale and/or whether or not they have anti-conservative bias in their moderation; he has even openly criticized a number of them in some cases. So yeah, the list isn’t actually that long, and none of it appears to be related to them being big businesses.
I mean, I’m pretty sure that at least some of them are ones you put on the other list, but there are others he has criticized (like Apple, John Deere, Monster Energy, etc.)
Seriously, this is pretty bad so far as parody goes.
Re: Womp Womp
All together now: FUCK YOUR FEELINGS!
Re:
In that case Musk will have an even tougher time to ship all those Republicans to Mars.
Well, now, ain’t this just a hoot?!! The All-Amerikan Fascist League fighting it out with Das Kapital’s most evil company assemblage!! This however may be solvable, by placing DeSantis and the Disney CEO both in a 5’X 10′ room, with a tarred floor, one hand each tied behind their backs, and dolled up in chicken-suits. Then, let them have at it until one of them passes out, and make that participant 100% financially responsible for the entire exhibition (which would of course be Pay-per-View televised, hosted by Pee-Wee Herman and Stuttering John. Isn’t that more fun than simply envisioning two snakes eating each-other from the tail on up, until nothing’s left?
There should be repercussions
Politicians in so many states recently have repeatedly passed these bills for what must be nothing more than performance as they’re clearly unconstitutional. They waste taxpayer money on them being passed, then waste it again in court having them ruled unconstitutional, then again during the appeal, and so on. I wish we had something on the books such that when they do this in a blatant manner, there were repercussions for the politicians, such as something as simple as not being allowed to put forward further bills, or being unable to run again, or even they have to pay the legal costs instead of the taxpayers. It’ll never happen, but would be nice.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Not Unconstitutional
State government gets to set the curriculum that’s taught in public schools. Public schools teachers do not have a 1st Amendment right to teach whatever they want. When they are teaching, they are employees of the state speaking for the state, and the government may speak in any way it wants. There is nothing unconstitutional about a state saying that neither woke gender ideology nor critical race theory may be taught as fact to children, any more than it is unconstitutional for New York to ban “boy’s penis” in favor of just “penis”.
Re: Re:
But there is something fucked up when the state saying that when neither of those things are happening—and is also saying that teachers can’t talk about “divisive concepts” like the history of slavery, the civil rights movement, or the mere existence of gay people.
See also: Ron DeSantis banning math books from all but one publisher—Accelerated Learning, a Houston-based publisher owned by The Carlyle Group. Until 2020, the CEO of The Carlyle Group was Glenn Youngkin, the current governor of Virginia—and someone who has been pushing for laws like DeSantis’s to pass in Virginia (which would most assuredly benefit Accelerated Learning/The Carlyle Group if passed).
And if you want to bitch about the textbooks DeSantis banned, maybe look at what’s actually in them instead of looking at shit DeSantis and his underlings shared without sourcing what they shared.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Both of those things are being taught all over the country, despite the woke trying to claim otherwise by using conveniently restrictive definitions of those terms. When New York says that teachers should say “penis” instead of “boy’s penis” in health education classes, that’s teaching woke gender ideology.
I do not, however, know whether the Florida math book challenges are reasonable or not. Given that your linked article says “Popular Information is committed to doing whatever it takes to hold DeSantis and other powerful people accountable.” then obviously Popular Information is not an unbiased source by which the books can be judged. You yourself have said that you see “nothing wrong” with New York’s woke gender ideology curriculum, so it’s equally likely that Public Information might have ignored things in the textbooks for which they also saw “nothing wrong” but which other people might find wrong indeed. Or it could just be the usual Republican garbage. We’ll have to wait for more investigation. Or rush to judgement. Whatever.
Also, filling textbooks with stupid platitudes about how to learn instead of just covering the material in logical and well-organized ways is, well, stupid.
Re: Re: Re:2
Can I see your education science credentials?
Thanks.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
Education schools are the fetid hothouses in which woke ideology grows. Having credentials in education science is the last thing that would make anyone trusted to know about education.
Re: Re: Re:4
Would you prefer all children be taught in religious schools, where the only ideology is “believe what I believe or we’ll kick you out”?
Re: Re: Re:4
Can you show us on the doll where the teacher busted your hyman?
Re: Re: Re:4
Are there any other kinds of schools? Ones that don’t even pretend to try to educate people? Like I feel like that’s kinda what a school is for: education.
Re: Re: Re:2 Why do you spend so much time thinking about childens sex organs?
Hey bro can you just try to make one post without saying woke?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
Boys and men have penises, girls and women don’t. That’s an obvious fact, and since woke gender ideology denies it, it makes a great club with which to batter such ideology. You might need to be a historian or sociologist to show why critical race theory is false, but you just need a bare knowledge of human anatomy to see why woke gender ideology is false.
Re: Re: Re:4
Hey bro can you just try to make one post without saying woke?
Re: Re: Re:5
At this point they use the word so often I can only assume that it’s either their fetish or their sponsor.
Re: Re: Re:4
What if they have both parts? Or neither?
I don’t think it’s even falsifiable. Even if it’s misguided, it’s largely about opinions and interpretations, so it’s not really something that is either true or false.
And yet experts on human biology disagree with you. It’s almost as if the basics of human anatomy don’t tell the whole story…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
If they have both, then they’re genetic and developmental sports, who are the exception that proves the rule. Woke gender ideologues would squeal in outrage if such developmental oddity were a requirement for people to call themselves a gender different from their body, so this is simply something that woke gender ideologues bring up in order to conceal the actual lies they are trying to get people to affirm.
Re: Re: Re:6
Woke
Re: Re: Re:6
What is this “gender ideology”? Do you mean people who don’t believe that all humans must conform to current and local expectations of gender expression determined by inspection of their genitals or genetic material?
I mean, if anyone is an ideologue, it’s you genital wardens. I have no problem with live and let live, I don’t need to see a birth certificate, genitals or blood test to accept that a person is whoever they present and claim themselves to be. I don’t feel the need to tell people that they must dress themselves as the sex I presume they are, or even make an assumption or investigate what the sex of someone who does not clearly fit into my preconceived ideas of how any one gender or sex is likely to appear. Its not my business and does not change how I interact. I don’t think I have the right to tell someone what name or pronouns they must use for themselves or respond to. I don’t think I have the right to dictate to a newlywed what last name I will address them by. If you think you have the right to determine such things, you aren’t stating the truth or the science or whatever else you penis/testicle auditors claim, you’re just being an asshole.
The only time I see any reason for discussion is potentially when someone transitions after natural puberty and there may be a need to assess whether physical strength and size creates an unfair competitive advantage or needs to be accommodated. I don’t think there is one size fits all rule that is universally fair, it’s far too nuanced. These discussions must be done with sensitivity and compassion, with the goal to determine the best possible outcome for all parties that they all agree on. No one chooses to be trans to gain some sort of advantage so we need to stop pedalling that nonsense.
But you frank&bean counters are the ones losing your shit and demanding that biological males continue to perpetuate the patriarchy. You make no secret of how much lesser you consider the female sex and associated femininity; slurs and insults you sling at insufficiently masculine men often are words that are associated with women and being female. You are the one demanding active compliance to your ideas of sex and gender, even if it continues to hold the entire nation back from a better life for everyone. I’m the one that just wants people to be their authentic self and for you panty sniffers to stop degrading others and forcing your uptight ideology on everyone else.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7 Woke Gender Ideology
Woke gender ideology (falsely) claims that a person can be male or female (or something else) apart from what their body is. There is no “must conform”. People are whatever sex their bodies are, and they have no choice about it.
Adults, or children who have the permission of their parents, can choose to have their bodies altered in any way they like, and costume themselves in any way they like, and the result may be superficial resemblance to a person of the opposite sex, which will vanish upon closer examination.
In our free society, no one is required to conform to gender stereotypes. Men may dress in stereotypical women’s clothing and vice versa without penalty, at work, for example, as the current Supreme Court affirmed. Men may behave in stereotypically feminine ways ad vice versa without (formal) penalty as well.
However. Our society (and most others)
have religious, social, and cultural taboos
that many people feel strongly about that require segregation by sex in a variety of contexts. People who claim to be a sex different than their body do not get to force those people to set aside their taboos and make their way into single-sex spaces for which their bodies are wrong, unless they get permission from the people already there. They also do not get to teach schoolchildren in public schools that their false beliefs about gender are true. And they do not get to force other people to affirm their beliefs through sleight-of-hand, as by having medical intake forms ask for “sex assigned at birth”, such that any answer carries with it the implicit affirmation that a sex was indeed assigned at birth. Sex is not assigned at birth. It is observed and noted.
Note that it is a segment of feminists, whom woke gender ideologues like to call TERFs, who most object to woke gender ideology, because it heavily consists of men telling women how to be women, of convincing perfectly normal women that they are “nonbinary” or “genderqueer” because they choose not to conform to the stereotypical feminine behavior and appearance that the fake women are eager to adopt, and who despise lesbians who want to date only women, not men who claim to be women.
Woke gender ideologues have hijacked gay rights and women’s rights and used them to push an idea so ridiculous on its face that normal people not into these politics are flabbergasted at what they’re expected to believe when they find out about it, such as New York requiring that health education classes not refer to “a boy’s penis” but rather just “a penis”.
Re: Re: Re:8
Except there is—from you and transphobes like you, who tell trans people they “must conform” their gender identity to their biological sex so you and your ilk can feel more comfortable.
Except they are—because people like you will continually (and loudly) call out and shame gender non-conforming people on their non-conformance.
I will again ask you to point to one provable instance of that actually happening anywhere in the United States—especially at the same grade levels in which Ron DeSantis banned any and all sexual education from being taught within the state of Florida.
Trans women don’t want to tell cis women “how to be women”. Trans women want to live a public life without being bothered. They’re not going around raping cis women in public restrooms on a daily basis—they’re trying to take a shit in a public restroom without being harassed.
I have never heard of or seen any transgender person seriously attempt to convince any cisgender person that the cisgender person is NB or genderqueer because they dress or act a certain way. They might suggest it, sure—but as far as needling and harassing cisgender people in that regard, I’ve never heard of or seen it happening.
So what? If they want to complain about it, that’s on them. Not everyone is comfortable with the idea of a surprise dick in the bedroom.
No, they haven’t. Queer rights are human rights—and that goes for all queer people. Trans people deserve the same civil rights as gay, bi, and asexual people. You have done a shit job of proving otherwise.
Also, this whole “no T after LGB” bullshit you’re trying to pull isn’t going to work in the long term. Enough queer people see through that shit that you’ll end up uniting them instead—especially once your kind are done with attacking trans people in particular and switch back to attacking queer people in general. Don’t think that isn’t where it’s headed, given all the “groomer” talk. One day, you’re going to wake up and start hating gay people like you hate trans people, and it’s going to be because your fellow transphobes will have convinced you that all the f⸺ts deserve the same treatment, no matter how they “choose to identify”.
All this hate, and where does it get you in the end?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:9
I showed you the New York document about teachers using *a penis” rather than “a boy’s penis”. But woke gender ideologues make it a habit of ignoring reality for ideology, so you will sealion the same question over and over again.
What does objection get me? The same thing objection to creationism got me. Preventing people from being coerced into affirming lies and having lies taught as truth in public schools.
Re: Re: Re:10
I’m still not seeing the big fuckin’ deal here. What is so motherfucking “Noah, get the boat” evil about referring to a penis without also referring to an explicit sex/gender identity?
Please strictly define “woke”, then “woke gender ideologues”, in clear terms without resorting to passive voice–laden vague bullshit that can mean whatever you want it to mean. And speaking of “ignoring reality”…
…I will again note that in this argument, you’re on the side of people who would most likely demand creationism be taught in schools. You’re only hurting your case by saying or thinking otherwise.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:11
The problem with implying that it is not only boys who have penises is that it’s a lie. We should not be teaching lies in public school. That’s what parochial schools are for.
Woke is a general term for a constellation of ridiculously false left-wing beliefs that ideologues would like to force people into believing. As we can see from your asking the same question again and again, it includes the inability to see reality. Woke gender ideology claims that sex and gender are different, that people can be of a sex or gender different from their bodies, and that people can change their sex. All of those things are false. I’ve told you this over and over again.
Unlike woke ideologues, I do not require that people who agree with me on one issue agree with me on all issues. If their work helps me with the issue I’m concerned about, I’m glad for it, even if I will have to fight against them over other issues. It’s a lesson woke ideologues would do well to learn, but they never do.
Re: Re: Re:12
Except it’s not. Intersex people can have penises.
I will again point out that the same people who are on your side about trans people are far more likely than not to think public schools should be parochial schools.
Fuck generalities. I can handle the details—if you can actually provide them.
I’m asking you the same question because you keep answering it in such a way that you can flake on giving out definitive statements that you might end up regretting if I hold you to them in the future. I’m asking you the same question because you only ever blow it off with the same vague bullshit that you keep believing will pacify me. I’m asking you the same question because you refuse to give me a satisfactory answer—and I will keep asking it until you either shut the fuck up or give me a satisfactory answer. Which one are you going to do first?
That is a fact, though. Biological sex is different from gender identity, which is informed at least partially by societal and cultural notions of gender and gender roles (e.g., “boys should wear blue, girls should wear pink”; “boys should play sports, girls should play with Barbie dolls”; “men should work, women should stay in the kitchen”).
Sex, maybe not, but hell yes on gender.
On a long enough timeline (and assuming we don’t get wiped out by the Sixth Extinction within the next century), that won’t merely be possible—it’ll probably be easier than either you or I could imagine.
On the other hand, it might behoove you to understand that you’re opposing a position held by enough people in power that being on their side of the trans “debate” won’t save you from having your face eaten by those leopards. After all…
…you’re walking with ideologues of your own. Don’t think for a second they won’t snap your neck and bury you on the side of the road if they think it’ll get them what they want. They have more power than you will ever have—look at the Supreme Court for proof—and they will use it to crush you no matter how much you hate “the right people”.
All this hate, and where will it get you in the end?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:13
Intersex people are a fig leaf that woke gender ideologues use whenever people point out that humans are a species with binary sexes. Woke gender ideologues would squeal if being intersex were a requirement for declaring oneself trans.
Woke gender ideologues believe that sex is different from gender and that people can change their sex.
Woke race ideologues believe that all disparities between racism groups are due to white people deliberately keeping grown people down.
Woke education ideologues believe that children should not be educated with the mechanical systems that underlie knowledge – phonics for reading, tables and algorithms for math, and so forth.
Woke art ideologues believe that creation of art should be restricted by race and national origin. Only Black people may create at about Emmett Till. Only Hispanic people (but not necessarily only Puerto Ricans) may play Sharks in West Side Story.
Woke ideologues in general want to control people’s use of language. Only Black people may say the “n word” in its “a” or “er” suffix versions. Illegal aliens most be called “undocumented immigrants”. Words tying sex to bodily functions must be banished – no more “motherboards”, they’re now “mainboards”. Using “master” and “slave” for inanimate systems is forbidden. Any statements that woke ideologues do not like can be banned on the ground that it makes them feel “unsafe”.
Woke justice ideologues believe that criminals should not be imprisoned for their crimes, and that arrested people should not be evaluated for possible danger to society before being released on their own recognizance. The exception is for white men accused of rape, who must be punished for the rest of their lives with no due process required.
Precise enough for you?
Re: Re: Re:14
Finally, you did some actual detailing of your bullshit. Good for you! Hooray! 🎉
And now I get to tear your bullshit apart piece by piece.
Sex is different from gender identity; ask a reputable scientist or medical professional who works in those fields and chances are good that they’ll say the same. And whether anyone truly believes they can change their biological sex through surgeries and hormone treatments is ultimately irrelevant to this discussion, seeing as how their decision to transition doesn’t really affect you unless they’re a close relative of yours.
I’m sure there are some people who believe that. But I’d guess that most of the people you consider “woke race ideologues” more accurately believe that even in the absence of interpersonal racism from white people, institutional racism would still exist. A white person could have no real prejudices against Black people and still uphold institutions that oppress and marginalize Black people without meaning to. The burden for mitigating (or eliminating) that racism within a given institution lies on the people who have the power to do so; by and large, that means white people. (If your next thought is “Black people need to fix it”: For what reason should the victims of a racist institution be burdened with fixing its racism?)
Not…really? Like, I can’t think of any teacher who thinks kids shouldn’t be taught the basics for major subjects like reading/writing and math and such. Even religious schools teach that shit, and they don’t even really have to. Maybe teachers do it a little differently now than when I was a kid, I’ll grant that—but they’re still teaching the basics because they’ll otherwise get fired for gross incompetence.
Oh, this one…this one, I’m gonna have to really go in-depth with.
The thing about, say, a white person making a movie about Emmett Till is that they’re far more likely to center the story on someone other than Till or his family. That’s not to say they’d ignore his story entirely, but they’d likely look for some way to shoehorn in a framing device like a white reporter “looking for the truth” while reconciling his own issues with race. The White Gaze, as one might call it, is an insidious notion: It posits that no story is important or substantial unless told through the experience of a white person.
A Black filmmaker would properly center the experiences and lives of Black people—Till and his family, most of all—over those of, say, the white woman who got him killed or the jury that acquitted his white killers or the hypothetical white reporter I mentioned above. A Black filmmaker would know enough to know that making a movie centered around Emmett Till’s life and death requires the attention be put where it belongs: on Emmett Till.
None of this is to say that white people can’t make a good movie/TV show/book/whatever about people of color. Of course it’s possible. But it isn’t as likely to happen because of the vast divide between how the average white person experiences life in America and how the average Black person experiences life in America.
As for the bit about playing roles: The whole point of racially sensitive casting is that even if it gets some things wrong (e.g., the casting of non–Puerto Rican Latinos in the recent West Side Story film adaptation), it often avoids the problems of overt black- and brownface. One easy joke that goes around the Internet these days is about Scarlett Johanssen playing anyone from Harriet Tubman to Frida Kahlo because of how she was cast as Asian character Motoko Kusanagi in Ghost in the Shell, but it speaks to a broader point: Racially sensitive casting is about casting for both acting ability and avoiding accusations of racist casting. To put it another way, racially sensitive casting is the difference between the controversy surrounding the casting of The Last Airbender and the relatively unnoticed fuck-up from West Side Story.
And Republicans don’t? I mean, look at all the bills they’re trying to pass about teaching “divisive concepts”. How the hell do you teach kids about American slavery without teaching them things like who did the enslaving, who they enslaved, how they treated enslaved people, and how an entire war was fought to preserve the institution of slavery? All of those could be labeled “divisive concepts” if you tilt your head the right way.
To the broader point, though: I’d far prefer some of the personally considerate language they’d use as compared to what you’d probably use in its stead. But let’s keep going and…
…okay, WOW—I didn’t expect you to stan for the Klan, but here we fuckin’ are. Good lord, dude.
In regards to the N-word: It’s a long-standing racial slur that Black people reclaimed because they have the moral right to reclaim it. Even then, it’s not as if Black people are a monolith in that regard: Just as some people I’d nominally identify as queer reject that word as a slur and refuse to use it in any context, plenty of Black people do the same for the N-word. If you really don’t understand why other ethnic groups don’t have the moral right to use that word, maybe you’re a fucking moron. (And a racist, to boot.)
I don’t see the problem here. A person isn’t illegal; the act they commit is. “Undocumented immigrant” is both more accurate and less demeaning, and it’s not as if referring to them as such changes how we track them or some shit. For what reason, other than intentional and possibly racist cruelty, would you object to using “undocumented immigrant”?
If you can’t see the problem with the “master/slave” terminology and why people pushed hard to change it, I doubt that you care about any other changes along those lines beyond wanting to whine like a baby about something changing in a way you didn’t first personally approve.
I’m sorry, but no. The people you’d likely refer to as “woke justice ideologues” would probably prefer people not be imprisoned for petty crimes—especially crimes related to drug use, such as possession/use of a small amount of illicit substances (notably marijuana). Ask any of those people and they’ll likely tell you that the people who commit violent crimes deserve a sensible amount of prison time. (The same would likely go for people who commit truly insidious financial crimes…if the U.S. actually punished those with jail time, that is.)
Some people don’t need to be evaluated for being a possible threat—especially not if they’re only in jail because they smoked some pot or got in a brief fistfight with a friend or something. But moreover, people shouldn’t be jailed indefinitely unless they’ve committed crimes so heinous in both amount and depravity that they’ve effectively forfeited their freedom.
I have never heard anyone single out white rapists for that sort of punishment. If anything, any rapist of any ethnicity spending a significant amount of time in prison would represent a sea change in how this country handles sexual assaults that aren’t committed against children.
Also, since I know you’ll ask about my stance on the matter: A rapist shouldn’t be jailed for the rest of their life even if the chances that they’ll rape again will be significantly high. If they serve their time, they deserve their freedom again in return—albeit with strings like the sex offender registry attached. Permanent incarceration isn’t any more an answer to crime than throwing more cops (and more bullets) at the problem. That you seem to think otherwise is telling on yourself.
It’s all still bullshit based on ridiculous-ass “reporting” from right-wing news sources as well as exaggerations and conspiratorial thinking from right-wing pundits…but yes, it was more precise than “woke people are people I don’t like for vague reasons that I can’t explain”. 😁
Re: Re: Re:6
“The exception that proves the rule” only applies to general, entirely descriptive rules/claims, particularly where there are essentially no consequences for being wrong should that occur. We’re talking about an absolute, universal claim here, one on which policy decisions are being made (like having gender-segregated public restrooms and sports in the first place). In that case, even one counterexample—no matter how rare—disproves the claim.
Also, I have no idea what “sports” means in “genetic and developmental sports”. I assume it’s a typo, but I have no idea what word was intended.
You also failed to address “neither”; only “both”, making this an incomplete answer.
As I have said, this is in no small part due to the impracticality of and privacy issues with actually enforcing such a requirement, particularly over something that is really not something others should worry about in the first place. I have also pointed out that such a “developmental oddity” is, in fact, observed in most—if not all—transgender individuals: their brain chemistry and structure correspond far better with their gender identity than with their (apparent) physiological sex.
I assume by “actual lies”, you mean:
(From another of your comments later in the thread.)
If so, it’s not a “lie”. For one thing, a statement cannot be a lie if the person saying it sincerely believes it to be true, even if they are delusional or mistaken. That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true; it just means it’s not a lie.
For another, they generally use “man” and “woman” to refer to gender identity while “male” and “female” refer to physiological sex, so technically that’s not even what they’re saying, but I’m being pedantic.
More importantly experts in relevant fields are largely in agreement that physiological and genetic sex are distinct from neurological, psychological, and sociological gender identity and that they don’t always correlate perfectly, which means the statement is—according to the information available currently—actually a true statement, not a false one, and it’s not a lie if it’s actually true. At a minimum—without going into the pedantic arguments over precise definitions of “gender”, “sex”, “male”, “female”, “man”, or “woman”—it is at least a justifiable and sincere claim that has not been unequivocally disproven such that no reasonable person with education on the subject would argue otherwise. Again, that is not a lie. You may disagree, but that doesn’t make the statement a lie.
Another one you give later is this:
This kinda depends on how you define “sex”, which is not at all easy to do. Is someone with no real genitals and a feminine appearance but XY chromosomes a male or a female? Does the answer depend on whether or not they were born that way? Depending on how you would answer those questions, the statement “people can change their sex” could be either true or false, but for any definition by which the statement is false, literally nobody is claiming that—at least with the technology we have today—one can actually change their sex under that definition (what I would call the “at-birth physiological and genetic sex”), so that is a complete strawman.
Re: Re: Re:5
[citation needed]
Re: Re: Re:6 Woke this
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/
Here ya go ya fuckwit
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
There are a tiny fraction of people who have genetic or developmental anomalies with respect to their sex. That has nothing to do with woke gender ideology. Woke gender ideologues would squeal in outrage if anyone demanded that a person demonstrate such physical issues before being allowed to declare themselves a different sex. Woke gender ideologues demand that society affirm the delusions of people who have perfectly ordinary bodies but mentally ill minds.
Re: Re: Re:8
Exceptionally transphobic Republican lawmakers want people to inspect children’s genitals if they present in a gender non-conforming fashion. You’re in no position to talk about “woke gender ideologues” when your side wants to do that shit.
Re: Re: Re:8 You got served
Thanks for trying to move the goalposts son.
Re: Re: Re:8
It is not a fig leaf. While intersex individuals are only a tiny part of the population, they are not insignificant and do not deserve to be dismissed or diminished into non-existence. Furthermore, the medical and biological factors that currently designate someone as intersexed are based on current understanding and research, and not exhaustive research that has yet to be completed. There may very well be a “gay” or “trans” gene or other biological factors yet to be discovered; likewise, research may not ultimately shake out a specific biological factor. That still does not rule out the possibility of other organic explanations that we may or may not come to understand. A strict binary set of definitions of sex is over simplified and possibly premature. Don’t say semantics don’t matter when you are trying to diminish the existence of certain human beings, but feel the word “boy” must be used before “penis” on educational diagrams of male reproductive organs. Let me guess, you also want to make sure that educational diagrams about reproductive organs use an asterisk next to anus if it’s included, so that the anus is specifically described as an exit portal for waste, or some kids could get the idea that it might also be for sex.
Re: Re: Re:8
Delusions. Where did you get the idea that trans people are suffering delusions? They know that their bodies do not represent who they feel they are on the inside. They aren’t wondering around believing things that are verifiably and concretely untrue. And perhaps the reason they feel their body is not representative of their true self falls into a sort of mental health disorder, it doesn’t change the best way to help them overcome the pain it causes and live an otherwise ordinary life is access to proven medical care such as counseling, hormones, surgery with thorough psychological exam before hand, and of course a safe accepting environment and loving support network. You aren’t being asked to do anything other than mind your business. Do you really want some kind of force to stop folks that don’t appear to be presenting themselves consistently with their birth sex, brand them or force them to wear armbands to ensure that they don’t enter the restroom/dressing room they prefer, that they still model social behaviors of their birth sex, that they are isolated from anyone under 18 who might not care at all or ask a question? I mean, what exactly do you think should trans folks should do? Just retreat somewhere you don’t have to see them? Accept bullying, intimidation, threats, even more violence, more dehumanizing treatment as punishment for who they are? Go to some kook for “conversion” therapy (cuz how good was that for the gay community?)- it’s not offered by actual mental health professionals- and suppress their inner self until they inevitably take a belt and fan ride?
What bothers you so much about being acceptive and accommodating when it doesn’t really require you to do anything? I’m a mom, and had some trouble breastfeeding. Do you think I give a shit if breastfeeding is also referred to as chest feeding? Nope. Hell, if it took some of the damn stigma off idiots acting like there is something inherently sexual or gross about nursing in public, I’d lead the charge to changing it! And please, stop pretending this has ever been about looking out for the wellbeing of of women and girls, especially as it pertains to sports. If y’all gave a rats ass about girls sports, then there would be a girls sport that was celebrated with special events like pep-rallies and homecoming dances. Cheerleaders would be widely acknowledged as the real athletes they are, and they would only practice and perform on proper tumbling mats, the same as football players get helmets and shoulder pads. There would be at least one sport that was as widely watched and supported as football or boys basketball. There would be enough market interest in women’s sports that it doesn’t take years of lawsuits to get equal pay to the men’s team, that hasn’t been winning any championships lately.
Re: Re: Re:6
Ironic coming from you, Hymen Rosan.
Re: Re: Re:2 Your W key must be plum worn out feller
You just can’t stop saying woke can you?
Re: Re: Re:2
Are they being taught in grade schools? If so, can you provide one credible fact-based example of it? And that doesn’t include…
…because you can’t make me believe saying merely “penis” is some culture-threatening shit over which trans people need to be attacked with your ridiculous level of fervence.
The fact that you think of concrete definitions for words and phrases as “restrictive” is telling on yourself.
Assume for a moment that the link I gave you is biased against Ron DeSantis. (Hard leap in logic, I know~.) Taking that bias into account, you should still be able to answer three basic questions:
The article gives you the names of the textbooks from which the writers drew their evidence. Find those books and prove your assertion true. Otherwise, you’ve got a lot of nothing and all the room in the world in which to store it.
DeSantis and his underlings provided what they called “proof” of “controversial” subject matter being taught in math textbooks now banned from the state of Florida. They’ve refused to say what textbooks their “proof” came from; so far as I know, no one has been able to source that “proof” to any of the banned textbooks. A group of journalists, regardless of whatever biases they might have, looked up several of the textbooks and found nothing as controversial as what DeSantis and his cronies say are in those books.
How much more fucking investigation do you need before you see how bullshit all of this is, son?
Only if you think children should be taught rote memorization of math instead of problem-solving skills that can require cooperation and working with others—which, y’know, seems like something kids might need to be taught even if all they’re ultimately being taught is how to be a good little capitalist drone.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
The fact that you think the opposite of emotional pablum is rote memorization says a lot about you. Different approaches for solving math problems are great; you teach those by showing the different approaches to the math, not by appealing to the mental states of the solvers.
Not that woke educational philosophy cares about students becoming proficient in the material. It’s all about making incompetent people feel good about themselves, not teaching them. And if all else fails, it’s because of racism.
Re: Re: Re:4
Teach the solutions to problems, and ignore how those solutions were found results in student who can do what they have been taught, but have no clue, other than ask the expert, when faced with a problem outside that which they have been taught. A good teachers encourages and leads their pupils into finding solutions for themselves.
Re: Re: Re:5
A good textbook and a good teacher provide one or more ways of solving a problem and explain why those ways work. There isn’t time to have students discover everything for themselves, nor do we let students find their own solutions for, say, driving a car. We know stuff. We have books and other stores of knowledge precisely so that we can pass along that knowledge without everyone needing to duplicate discovery.
Re: Re: Re:6 At least you didn't say woke
It’s so badly obvious that you have never net a teacher outside of ignoring them desperately and ultimately, futilely trying to educate you.
Re: Re: Re:6
Books and the Internet are only useful to someone who has learnt how to use knowledge sources. Teaching someone how to use those resources is more involved that teaching index systems and search methodologies, as it includes evaluation of sources, and an open mind. It seems that you education about learning is lacking, as you take the simplified view of gender, as initially taught, and take it as gospel, rather than a jumping off point for a more nuanced look at the topic.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
The people who can’t use books as resources are the ones who have failed to be taught to read by the same woke education ideologues who fail to teach anything.
Re: Re: Re:8
Dude, we get that you’re a dyed-in-wool conservative who wants trans people dead—you don’t need to keep saying “woke” every other sentence to prove your bona fides.
Re: Re: Re:8
Reading is the lest skill involved in using available data, there is also how to use a library index or a search engine to find information, and an ability to evaluate the source, and any biases that it may have. The way you keep quoting woke, without providing details of what you mean show that your education in carrying out research is sadly lacking.
Re: Re: Re:4
I don’t see how. We send kids to school so they can learn. If they’re only being taught how to memorize shit for tests so they can pass to the next grade, that’s rote memorization. If they’re being taught life skills such as cooperation with others in addition to the text of the subjects, that’s…I guess what you call “emotional pablum”. Which are you more upset about: that stuff being taught, or my calling you out on wanting schools to not teach life skills that may or may not lead to the teaching (or learning) of critical thinking?
Accusation, confession, etc.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
The woke education ideologues claim that they’re teaching children how to learn in order to disguise the fact that they’re failing to teach children to master the material they’re supposed to be learning. Having math texts that tell children to write essays about their mental state is simply evidence that the math books have been polluted by ideologues who are likely incapable of solving any of the math problems that the books are supposed to teach.
Re: Re: Re:6
Yes or no: Would you prefer that teachers only ever teach students the material to the letter and nothing more, such that students only ever learn enough to pass a standardized test at the end of the semester/school year?
Three things.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
I would be thrilled if students learned their subjects well enough to pass a standardized test and nothing more. We are so far from that it’s laughable.
The nasty secret that woke education ideologues suppress is that the children who learn are the ones who come from stable homes with motivated parents who make sure the kids do their homework, meet with teachers to try to help their kids if there are problems, provide extra tutoring if needed, have houses full of books, and so forth. Those are the kids who will profit from multiple approaches to problems. For the rest of the kids, the touchy-feely garbage is just going to prevent them from learning the subject matter at all. The time to learn multiple approaches to adding 9 and 5 is after you’ve memorized that it’s 14, not before.
Re: Re: Re:8
That is setting them up for failure, as most will forget what they have learnt as soon as it is no longer needed for passing a test.
Re: Re: Re:8
Then we should teach children rote memorization and only the skills they need to pass a standarized test. According to you, anything else is “woke education ideology” designed to “indoctrinate” children into…whatever it is you think teaching basic life skills is supposed to indoctrinate children into believing, since “woke” is such vague nonsense that you can make it mean anything you want on a day-to-day basis.
So to hell with the children who don’t, then? I suppose you believe they shouldn’t benefit from a proper education, or even the “woke” education you’re so willing to decry? Hey, maybe we should put them to work like we did a century or so ago—that seems like something you’d suggest as a “solution” to the problem of “problem children”.
Once again, you absolutely show your ass without meaning to show it. In your eyes, cruelty and strictness and “fuck you, learn this now” approaches to education are the only ones that matter. Screw accomodating children with different learning styles or autistic children or children with ADHD or whatever—if they can’t learn by rote memorization drilled into them by an uncaring sociopath of a “teacher”, they don’t matter…at least, not to you.
“Touchy-feely garbage” paints any attempt by a teacher or authority figure to show some sort of sensitivity or empathy as nothing less than weakness. To people who believe that shit (like you, apparently), we don’t need teachers—we need drill sargeants and people unwilling to show any leeway for anyone who can’t learn the “right” way.
Schools shouldn’t be prisons or military boot camps. They should be places where children can learn math and writing and such while also being taught how to socialize—how to work with others and share and all that. You don’t get that from the approach you apparently want schools to take. All you get from that approach are good little capitalist drones who won’t question shit in their lives until they hit 40 and realize how much they missed out on while they were busy making other people rich.
Re: Re: Re:8
As an autistic person with two teachers as parents, I can confidently say that you don’t know the first thing about education.
Also, addition? Really? Outside of counting, there really aren’t multiple ways to add two one-digit numbers besides rote memorization. That’s just a terrible example.
Re: Re: Re:6
” Having math texts that tell children to write essays about their mental state is simply evidence…”
Let’s see that evidence.
Re: Re: Re:6
This is spoken like someone who was obviously never in any Talented & Gifted programs. Or a math league. Or debate team, or any academic team at all. Because then you would understand that your team could not win without those soft skills like communication, cooperation, listening skills. Ect. Skills that will carry over be built upon in pretty much every possible job or career, more than any of the content or subject matter of most classes.
And I’m pretty sure those text books didn’t ask for written essays, they just posed those question the side notes as thought exercises.
One of the things that really irks me about people who seem to think that they know exactly what has led to failures of the modern education system in US is that 1)it’s always the liberals, anyone they perceive as too soft or too young that are to blame, 2) anything that is taught differently than the way they learned it is inherently inferior 3) The kids are lazy, disrespectful, entitled 4) don’t have any kids currently in public school, and haven’t for at least 10 years, or not been in school themselves for 20 years 5) the only solution they ever have is the stupid suggestion ‘har-har, just go back to basics. Reading, writing, arithmetic is all I learned. And cursive, that is obviously where education is failing our kids, they stopped teaching cursive, bring it back. And how to balance a checkbook, that’s why those dummies can’t afford to buy a house or put money in savings. My preferred whitewashed version of history where we wax poetically about how the whites were good to those slaves, er migrant workers. And we never got shown appreciation from those savages, er Native Americans for those land reserves that we were kind enough to give to them, tell the kids about that. From now on, send the girls to the basement to talk about that gross women stuff so that the boys don’t have to be made uncomfortable or listen to them them talk endlessly, or do all that crying. And no sex ed that doesn’t compare girls that are not virgins as chewed gum, used tape or something else that no one will want after it’s been used by someone before. Every morning say the pledge standing hand over heart, no exceptions. Bring back spankings/paddling. That’s how you get those kids to behave and learn. Dodgeball, that’s all that you need for the playground, toughen up those little weaklings. Who cares if they don’t learn the skills they will actually need for the future, if it was good enough for me, good enough for their ungrateful butts’
Re: Re: Re:4
Just one post where you don’t say woke. Try it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Woke
Re: Re: Re:
“But there is something fucked up when the state saying that when neither of those things are happening—and is also saying that teachers can’t talk about “divisive concepts” like the history of slavery, the civil rights movement, or the mere existence of gay people.”
And how about the existence of ex-gays (which include many former gay activists)? They’re even more marginalized than gays, yet people like you fail to include them in your talk of inclusiveness and advocating for marginalized people’s rights. Just look at how you failed to mention them here. Until you push for their rights and validity as much as for those of others, you’re showing yourself as being selective and hypocritical (because you want rights only for some and not all) and have no credibility.
Re: Re: Re:2
If a person is “ex-gay” (read: deluding themselves into accepting a lie about their identity out of extreme pressure to fit into a pocket of society that generally wants gay people gone one way or another), they don’t need advocacy for civil rights. “Ex-gay” nominally means “straight”, and heterosexuals already have all the civil rights.
Re: Re: Re:2
It’s possible that some “ex-gays” could actually be bisexual. Sometimes they exclusively date one gender and then the other (I realize that “male” and “female” aren’t the only genders but bear with me). Take my sister, for instance: she used to date women but she now has a boyfriend. I also know a woman who used to date men but now dates women.
Bisexuals do exist.
I hate to say this, but there oughta be a law… A law that forces the individual members of legislating bodies and executives to pay out of pocket when they hastily write poorly thought out laws with the stated purpose of violating the constitution. I don’t know how Florida is going to stay such a low tax business friendly state when they actively move to hobble their largest employer, tax generating and overall economic driver. The legislature was in such a hurry that they said the folks of the two counties that would suddenly be tasked with maintaining this district can voice their opinions next year, after this takes effect. Although I guess they can’t really give an opinion when how the law will actually be executed since no one knows how this is going to effect their community yet.
I mean, what are they planning to with this reclaimed power? Are they going to rewrite all the regulations, including those relating to structural safety to reflect the same shitty ones across the state that allowed a building to partially collapse with residents inside while the condo board argued about how to finance emergency repairs for a few more years? Or that footbridge that collapsed onto a roadway not long ago? Or the retention pond that leaked into the ocean causing a deadly red algae bloom? Are they going to pay for the specialized crew and equipment and architects to perform work near& under the rides and attractions? I mean, not exactly an encouraging idea for parents with precious little children.
Are they going to make Disney go through ridiculous bureaucracy that take months or years for minor work to be approved, all the while deterring park visitors due to an inconvenience, not just to the park, but to the entire state? How long can the tourism industry take another drop in visitors because the state is fucking around with park operations to punish the company for their speech? Disney weighed ignoring their employees and the LGBTQ community, and tried it on for a little while. Seems like they figured out that wasn’t good for business. This is just cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Comment in wrong place!
I am not sure how it happened, but my comment with the subject “Re: This^” wound up a long way from where I posted it. Either I did something very wrong, or the new comment system behaves a bit differently from the old one.
Or maybe the blue tint means someone made it the last word? If this is the case, I am not sure whether to feel honored or insulted.
Anyone care to enlighten me?
Re: Now it is not last anymore...
Maybe I did not refresh the page, but it is still in the wrong place.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
"Disney makes out like a bandit" in having their special status revoked??
TKnarr, I want to make sure I’m not misunderstanding you.
You’re claiming this is a net gain for Disney.
If Disney ‘makes out like a bandit’, why are they fighting it? And fighting it tooth and nail, not an obvious fake resistance campaign ‘oh no, please don’t rescind our RCID privileges that would be so terrible oh me oh my’ I might add.
How do you explain this anomaly?
Re:
Because the corporation might not take a huge financial hit, but the people working for it in Florida certainly will. Employees becoming ex-employees because they can’t afford to live near (or travel to) their place of work won’t help Disney—or Florida, for that matter.
If Florida hadn’t passed this ‘Strip Disney Benefits’ law, how long before some group filed a lawsuit claiming that Florida was subsidizing ‘Say Gay’ speech with taxpayer dollars? This wasn’t a general benefit that any corporation got, it was a special set of laws that created a unique area where Disney had greatly expanded economic powers that no other Florida corporation received.
The IRS tax benefits that Churches receive do come with limitations on political speech by those churches. If a church does the wrong kind of political speech, it can lose its special tax status. https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/charities-churches-and-politics
This has been litigated in court and the constitutionality of the limitations affirmed.
Florida just leveled the Free Speech playing field. Disney no longer has its special economic area and can now feel free to engage in the same level of political advocacy that any other Florida corporation is entitled to make.
Re:
This wasn’t a general benefit that any corporation got, it was a special set of laws that created a unique area where Disney had greatly expanded economic powers that no other Florida corporation received.
And if those benefits had been removed before now and without making it abundantly clear that their removal was in retaliation for the company engaging in speech opposing the government’s actions then the removal would have been fine, however by making it explicitly clear that this is retaliation for speech that the state doesn’t like that revocation involves the first amendment because that’s kinda a constitutional no-no.
Adding to the idiocy this move has made it harder for the state to revoke those benefits in the future because with one blatant attempt to punish them for their speech by removing those rights Disney will be able to bring that angle up regarding future attempts since the state has shown that they can and will punish the company for saying the ‘wrong’ thing.
Re: Re:
Just as a Church is unlikely to have their special IRS benefits revoked before engaging in political speech, why would Florida revoke Disney’s special status prior to Disney doing something blatantly political? Is the revokation retaliation? Sure looks like it and Florida has stated that it is. Is it unconstitutional? The IRS precedents make it seem unlikely. Churches as religious institutions get some rather unique protections that non-religious organizations do not receive. If a church can have its status revoked over politics, seems Florida is on fairly good ground over revoking Disney’s special status over politics. But I am sure that Disney’s robust legal staff is researching options and Disney as a corporation isn’t exactly lacking in resources to make any case the legal staff thinks they can make.
Re: Re: Re:
Not…really?
Disney’s special status was revoked on the basis of speech—specifically, the way-too-late “we wish you wouldn’t do this please” denunciation of the “Don’t Say Gay” law. Nothing in the law prior to Disney’s condemnation of Floridian idiocy said Disney couldn’t comment on Floridian idiocy unless it chose to gave up its special status. Disney has clear First Amendment grounds on which it can (and likely will) attack the Florida legislature’s move to revoke Disney’s special status. That said legislature seems eager to hand Disney those grounds on a silver platter is…well, it’s not a smart move.
Re: Re: Re:2
If Florida loses, they can always add a “No Politics” clause to the restored special Disney exemption and re-revoke the exemption unless Disney shuts up. Any Disney win could be short lived.
As mentioned, I am sure there are multiple fully activated banks of Disney funded lawyers researching options and likely outcomes. Same for Florida funded lawyers. Probably lots of dust being blown off decades old legislative records, court rulings and administrative findings concerning the Disney special economic zone.
Re: Re: Re:3
And if you think Disney wouldn’t challenge that on the same First Amendment grounds that it’ll likely challenge this legislation, you’re out of your mind.
Re: Re: Re:4
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/04/22/tentative-thoughts-on-the-florida-repeal-of-disneys-special-government-district/
Actual law professors aren’t sure about whether the 1st Amendment applies here. It’s something that hasn’t come up before in this way.
Re: Re: Re:5
Do you not see a problem when the state, at any level, defines what political opinions are acceptable. (Hint you may find yourself living under Democratic rather than Republican rule.)
Re: Re: Re:6
Nonsense, the leopards would never eat their face.
Re: Re: Re:6
When the government is speaking for itself, it may say whatever it chooses, and that will involve favoring certain political positions and disfavoring others. That includes public school curriculums. Indeed, it would be well-nigh impossible to have government speech that is totally politically neutral; people will always find something objectionable.
Re: Re: Re:7
Do you not see a problem when the state, at any level, defines what political opinions are acceptable?
Re:
I’m pretty sure that if that was the case, then unions and their associated groups would be sueing states that give special tax benefits to companies like Amazon to attract them to their state, would be getting sued for financing anti-union speech. Just as an example.
One would only need to do a cursory search of the corporate welfare handed out to all the big businesses and then check social media and contributions made to charities or political candidates and the civil court system in every state would have decades worth of cases to hear.
The reason that doesn’t happen is that the corporate welfare (tax breaks) is not contingent on, or in exchange for giving up the right to free speech. Do you think any NFL team would have allowed kneeling to occur more than once, considering the hefty tax breaks that build stadiums and team facilities?
The special Disney district was probably mutually beneficial, and I suspect that this hasty knee jerk decision to end it is going to cost the state, taxpayers and most of the tourism industry more money than it will Disney. And it’s probably going to be more of a headache for the counties than they bargained for.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
All this is proof that straight people are a drain on our national resources. The truth is that straight couples have been grooming boys and girls to reject their gender in favor of a primitive need to breed. This rape education stops now.
Re:
Dude, you can stop trying to sell this blatantly obvious bait. Nobody here is going to buy it.
Re: Re:
That’s sad even for the usual batch of half-wits and nitwits.
Re: Re:
Love wins. The breeders will lose.
You keep using that phrase...
“Unconstitutional”
I don’t think you really know what it means anymore.
Re: Not a complex idea
‘In violation of the constitution’, for example members of the government explicitly punishing a company or other individual for legal speech not because it violates any law but simply because they don’t like it.
Stupid, but constitutional. Probably.
As i seem remember from sometime in the misty past, as long as the statute itself is constitutional and has been properly passed by a body lawfully allowed to do so, then motivation doesn’t matter. At least in terms of constitutional fitness anyway.