Culture

TorontoGold

Mr. Dumb Moron
Messages
7,360
Reaction score
5,709
Is it a bad? Does it matter? Those are the sticking points. Bad is subjective and needs context. In regard to what? Me personally? Society? Child Development?

Disney and their push on children they are drawing a huge line in the sand. Pretty much what I was saying in another post is that kids in the Disney phase of their life are very confused. There are stages of life kids go through. Lets confuse them even more in a pivotal stage by introducing gay cartoons, which is admittedly in reaction and response to Florida's new law. Its one thing to try to normalize gay but its another thing to push it. The Disney saga is an example how its going beyond normalizing and its just trying to over saturate our kids with the gays. What is their goal? Well they said what their goal was. Countering Florida law.

Florida law bans instruction or classroom discussion about LGBTQ issues for kindergarten through third grade. For older students, discussion about gay and transgender issues has to be “age appropriate or developmentally appropriate.” At the same time students are not really taught about straight sexual identity or sex until the same age. Sex education has been banned in many states already until around the 5th grade or 10ish years old. It also requires schools to disclose to parents when their child receives mental health services. The argument for this is the school is a safe haven for children to discuss their sexuality free of parent interference. That is not what schools are designed for.

As a Christian man that teaches my sons they were created with a penis with the intention of pairing them with a vagina to procreate, this is a problem. Same with my daughter that I am teaching the opposite. Is it bad for me and my goals as father, for sure it is. Is bad for you and your goals as a father, I dont know and honestly I dont care that is your business, or if you like its the governments and Disneys business since they obviously have goals for your child.

Just seems counterproductive that when someone says or makes a law that bans teaching about sexuality for younger age groups (when its not in even in curriculum until later anyway) that the response is more gay more gay more gay. You can disagree with Floridas law if you want but it does show on the other end that the goal is to saturate and expose the children to as much gay as possible. If gay is normal part of society and as natural as they claim kids should be exposed to it normally and naturally anyway. Why the push to saturate even further?

Is there any specific examples of Disney explicitly pushing it? In my opinion it seems like they're just providing representation for them, which doesn't seem like a bad thing. If there's explicit sexual scenes in a cartoon for children then ya that's fucked up and shouldn't be in there, but a quick search seems like that's not happening. Advocating for more representation by having more LGBTQ and minority characters is not something that reasonable minds should be against. I think everyone is against sexually explicit content for children.

How you raise your children is up to you of course, my personal opinion is that kids should be raised to open and accepting of others and be able to make their own judgement.
 

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,591
Reaction score
20,046
This is def a cultural divide... Here in El Paso about a month or so ago a local school was in the news for having what was described as a "Pro LGBT+" book in it's library (this is a library accessible to 6-12 grades). One of the chapters in the book covers how to properly perform oral sex and has illustrations in it of young boys (clearly younger than 18) giving each other oral.... now it should be clear why many parents do not want their 6 grader having access to this book. Yet it stayed in the library because it's tie to LGBT+ inclusion this and that. I'll refrain from diving any deeper into 'how dafaq are images of children giving BJs to each other allowed to be grouped in with LGBT without anyone blinking an eye on their side" point for now.... My nephew goes to this school and my BiL was fighting hard to get it removed claiming it crossed lines into child porn. He was called homophobic and all other bullshit by the book's advocates so he went to the site where a dialogue had been established with school board members online and created a profile, shared the image from the book with no other context and was immediately banned from the site with the reason given of...... pornography. So having our kids have access to it in a public school is fine, but sharing the same exact images online in a board designed to discuss the topic is off the rails and worthy of banning. Also, playing off Blazers' dialogue above, we all know zero books of faith are allowed in that library. I honestly don't know what else to same other than this whole topic is getting looney tunes...
That's child porn anyway you slice it.
 

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,591
Reaction score
20,046
Is there any specific examples of Disney explicitly pushing it? In my opinion it seems like they're just providing representation for them, which doesn't seem like a bad thing. If there's explicit sexual scenes in a cartoon for children then ya that's fucked up and shouldn't be in there, but a quick search seems like that's not happening. Advocating for more representation by having more LGBTQ and minority characters is not something that reasonable minds should be against. I think everyone is against sexually explicit content for children.

How you raise your children is up to you of course, my personal opinion is that kids should be raised to open and accepting of others and be able to make their own judgement.
No argument that kids should be raised to be understanding and accepting. I see two issues. You don't need to have sexually explicit scenes to go too far. A persons brain isn't fully developed until around age 20-21 IIRC. Providing an abundance of material probably isn't the most prudent thing. This is why many fight to have video games that depict killing banned or restricted.
 

TorontoGold

Mr. Dumb Moron
Messages
7,360
Reaction score
5,709
No argument that kids should be raised to be understanding and accepting. I see two issues. You don't need to have sexually explicit scenes to go too far. A persons brain isn't fully developed until around age 20-21 IIRC. Providing an abundance of material probably isn't the most prudent thing. This is why many fight to have video games that depict killing banned or restricted.
Exactly, that's why I think it should be handled on a case by case basis because I have yet to see anything that would suggest Disney is trying to convert children. Yeah with video games there's rating systems on violence and based on a parent's guidance they can decide when a kid can play the game.

At the end of the day nobody is forcing you to put Disney on for your kid, if you believe that LGBTQ material is harmful to your kid then don't play it. It would be a narrow world view but as a parent you can do that.
 

Bishop2b5

SEC Exchange Student
Messages
8,929
Reaction score
6,160

https://patriotpost.us/alexander/87484?mailing_id=6584&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.6584&utm_campaign=alexander&utm_content=body

Baring Biden’s Big ‘Gun Violence’ Lie​

What do the Sacramento assailants and victims have in common?

“The defense of one’s self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law. This principle of defense is not confined merely to the person; it extends to the liberty and the property of a man … it extends to the person of every one, who is in danger; perhaps, to the liberty of every one, whose liberty is unjustly and forcibly attacked.” —James Wilson (1791)

At 0200 Sunday in downtown Sacramento, assailants fired weapons while in a crowd of partiers gathered on a street outside local bars and nightclubs. Six individuals were killed and 12 others wounded.

Police are looking for multiple suspects who may have been involved in a street fight in the area earlier in the evening, but at present, no motive has been determined, as if this is a mystery. It is not clear if any of those killed or injured were specifically being targeted by the assailants.

Two men have been arrested in connection with the incident. Dandrae Martin was arrested on the scene. On Tuesday, his brother Smiley Martin, who was released from prison in February — six years before his 10-year sentence was complete — was arrested. Both men have extensive criminal records and were arrested for possession of illegal weapons, but neither has been charged with the homicide pending further investigation.

1649272781156.png
(These are the two suspects arrested, Dandrae and Smiley Martin)

A third criminal who was at the scene, Daviyonne Dawson, was arrested but released on $500,000 bond because the illegal weapon he had in his possession is not believed to have been used in the assault.

Before the blood had dried, Democrat politicos were serving up their usual big lies, blaming the deaths and injuries on “gun violence” in our nation’s urban centers.

Predictably, Joe Biden used the assault to advance his 2A deconstruction agenda. Biden claimed in a White House briefing: “America once again mourns for another community devastated by gun violence. … We know these lives were not the only lives impacted by gun violence last night. … We must do more than mourn; we must act. That is why my administration has taken historic executive action to implement my comprehensive gun crime reduction strategy.”

He used the attack as an opportunity to pitch his budget and try to put additional daylight between Democrats and their deadly “defund the police” agenda, insisting, “Pass my budget proposal, which would give cities more of the funding they need to fund the police.”

Likewise, Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg echoed Biden’s message: “Thoughts and prayers aren’t nearly enough. We must do more as a city, as a state, and as a nation. This senseless epidemic of gun violence must be addressed. How many unending tragedies does it take before we begin to cure the sickness in this country? Let us be honest, this is a sickness.”

But “gun violence” is not the problem; it is just a manifestation of the violent criminal problem the Democrats have propagated for seven decades.

If Demos want to “cure the sickness in this country,” they will have to start with the admission that the root cause of violence is cultural. But they will not touch that third rail of truth in regard to violence.

That is because urban violence is the direct result of generations of failed Democrat Party statist policies that have eroded our culture from top to bottom — including, most notably, families and the children who were once nourished by them. The devastating consequences of this erosion play out in an endless loop of daily tragedies — only the loudest of them, like mass assaults, ever make it into the news.

01F8X1Z1ZZ4FP6HG3GRY656K9F.jpeg


Those policies are the effluent of the Demos’ so-called “Great Society” social programs, which resulted in generations of poor Americans being enslaved on urban poverty plantations in every major city nationwide. These modern-day plantations are the locus of cultural devolution, most notably, the systemic disintegration of the American family and particularly the devaluation of fatherhood.

Most inner-city violence — in fact, most social degradation — is associated with the absence of effective fathering in the lives of young men and women.

So, what do the Sacramento assailants and victims have in common?

Earlier this week, before much was known about the Sacramento assault, I posted analysis titled “The Real ‘Epidemic of Violence’ in America?

It was a response to an absurd Biden assertion, pandering to his gender-confused constituents, that he was going to “end the epidemic of violence against transgender” people. There is no such epidemic, but there most assuredly is an “epidemic of violence” against black citizens, and the vast majority of those assailants are black.

I noted: “If Biden wanted to address a real ‘epidemic of violence,’ he would make the epidemic of black-on-black assaults and murder in America his administration’s highest priority. … In the most recent year for complete data, there were far more black people murdered than white people — even though the black population in America is only 13%. Moreover, the suspect in 88% of black victims of murder is also black.”

I noted further, regarding Biden’s “white supremacy” bogeyman and the interracial crime disparity, “According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics survey of criminal victimization, black people commit about 90% of interracial felonies but adult black males who committed most of those crimes represent less than 3% of the population.”

Again, what do the Sacramento assailants and victims have in common? Well, as outlined above, race. Those identified as the assailants are black, and four of those killed were black. In addition, one victim was Hispanic and another was a homeless person who may be white. As usual, the race of the assailants and victims is not mentioned by the MSM because that would make the racial association between assailants and victims too obvious.

It will require at least a generation to seed corrections to the generational urban catastrophe that the Democrat Party has created, all in the name of keeping its most loyal constituency corralled.

Notably however, an increasing number of black Americans are not betting on those changes.
01EX5C0FREH8RKGV05CYRVCP06.jpg

In the wake of the Demo-induced Black Lives Matter and antifa movement violence that consumed some Demo-controlled urban centers in 2020, compounded by the continuing criminal violence empowered by the Demo “defund the police” agenda, there has been a surge of firearm purchases by black citizens.

In fact, after the election of Biden, there were more than 18 million firearms purchased by all Americans in 2021. There has also been an significant increase of the issuance of carry permits.

Moreover, this week Georgia will become the 25th state to approve “constitutional carry,” meaning half our nation’s states have fully affirmed the First Civil Right “to keep and bear arms” as affirmed by the Second Amendment. Constitutional carry means that those who can legally possess a firearm can legally carry that firearm without the issuance of a permit. The other constitutional carry states are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

There are 17 right-to-carry states, some of which are also constitutional carry states, that issue carry permits, and those include reciprocity to carry between states with reciprocity agreements. In Tennessee, for example, a concealed carry permit, which requires competence testing and legal knowledge, is recognized by 37 other states.

Further, an upcoming Supreme Court case, NYSRPA v. Bruen, may ensure those states that highly restrict firearms possession — including states like New York, Illinois, and California, which all have high rates of urban violence — are required to restore their citizens’ right to keep and bear arms. As we say, when firearms are outlawed, only outlaws will have firearms.

Bottom line: Until Democrats begin to dismantle the policies that have spawned the culture of violence now besieging our nation, there will be no solution to the urban epidemic of violence — and no amount of leftists rhetoric about “gun violence” will solve anything.
 

Rockin’Irish

Hearing Impaired
Messages
3,244
Reaction score
2,507
I’m all for potential gun owners being vetted to give some reasonable assurance to the public. However, if someone wants to commit a crime or perpetrate violence then they will find a way to secure a weapon/firearm illegally. I‘d be willing to guess in the vast majority of cases where a violent crime is committed using a firearm, the firearm used by the offender was not secured by the offender legally. Life is cheap in “poor” socioeconomic circles and until the cycle of poverty is broken, I don’t see how further gun control will have much impact. The Jefferson County Health Department in Alabama just announced that the leading cause of death for black men ages 15 to 44 is homicide. I don’t provide this statistic as an indictment of race but it is an indictment of the poverty cycle. Unfortunately, I fear this is indicative of many of our urban environments.
 

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,591
Reaction score
20,046
Exactly, that's why I think it should be handled on a case by case basis because I have yet to see anything that would suggest Disney is trying to convert children. Yeah with video games there's rating systems on violence and based on a parent's guidance they can decide when a kid can play the game.

At the end of the day nobody is forcing you to put Disney on for your kid, if you believe that LGBTQ material is harmful to your kid then don't play it. It would be a narrow world view but as a parent you can do that.
If it were only that simple.
 

Blazers46

Adjectives: wise/brilliant/handsome.
Messages
8,107
Reaction score
5,459
Don't get me wrong. I'm not for having an agenda, particularly by one of the most influential media companies on the planet. Advertising has raced to be in the woke club. I don't know what the percentage is, but I would guess the percentage of commercials depicting a gay couple is higher than the percentage of the population that are gay.
Representation.
 

Blazers46

Adjectives: wise/brilliant/handsome.
Messages
8,107
Reaction score
5,459
Exactly, that's why I think it should be handled on a case by case basis because I have yet to see anything that would suggest Disney is trying to convert children. Yeah with video games there's rating systems on violence and based on a parent's guidance they can decide when a kid can play the game.

At the end of the day nobody is forcing you to put Disney on for your kid, if you believe that LGBTQ material is harmful to your kid then don't play it. It would be a narrow world view but as a parent you can do that.
Is anything handled case by case? The gun debate. Abortion. CRT. Racism. We live in a world where people riot over one racist incident. Where guns need to be restricted because a few bad actors. Where people think the gay agenda is being pushed because that one book in the school library that depicts a little boy giving another a BJ was approved 8-1 by the El Paso school board.
 

TorontoGold

Mr. Dumb Moron
Messages
7,360
Reaction score
5,709
Is anything handled case by case? The gun debate. Abortion. CRT. Racism. We live in a world where people riot over one racist incident. Where guns need to be restricted because a few bad actors. Where people think the gay agenda is being pushed because that one book in the school library that depicts a little boy giving another a BJ was approved 8-1 by the El Paso school board.
It's like what post 10+ and still there isn't anything posted by anyone on what exactly they deem to be inappropriate LGBTQ content in Disney movies. So it's impossible to have a back and forth on that. What sexual acts are being depicted in Disney content that are specifically of concern, or is it simply that LGBTQ people shouldn't be included in Disney content? If it's ok to have LGBTQ people in these films/shows then where is the line of "too much gay"?
 

Blazers46

Adjectives: wise/brilliant/handsome.
Messages
8,107
Reaction score
5,459
It's like what post 10+ and still there isn't anything posted by anyone on what exactly they deem to be inappropriate LGBTQ content in Disney movies. So it's impossible to have a back and forth on that. What sexual acts are being depicted in Disney content that are specifically of concern, or is it simply that LGBTQ people shouldn't be included in Disney content? If it's ok to have LGBTQ people in these films/shows then where is the line of "too much gay"?

Disney is just an example used. Disney is child friendly geared toward ages the schools view as too early for any sort of education on the matter. Floridas law reinforces this. Disney admits their new 50% thing is a reaction toward the Florida law. Florida’s purpose is to reinforce sort of what’s already being done, not exposing the younger kids. Disneys response is obviously to expose LGBT stuff to them since it’s a reaction to the Florida law. So a smart person would conclude their intent is to expose and saturate their market with LGBT. It’s about intent. When you lump it all together where books are voted on an approved that have other kids giving BJs to other kids it looks a lot worse.
 
Last edited:

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,591
Reaction score
20,046
It's like what post 10+ and still there isn't anything posted by anyone on what exactly they deem to be inappropriate LGBTQ content in Disney movies. So it's impossible to have a back and forth on that. What sexual acts are being depicted in Disney content that are specifically of concern, or is it simply that LGBTQ people shouldn't be included in Disney content? If it's ok to have LGBTQ people in these films/shows then where is the line of "too much gay"?
I guess it depends on your definition of inappropriate content. Doesn’t necessarily need to be physical acts which I am guessing you are referring to.
 

Bishop2b5

SEC Exchange Student
Messages
8,929
Reaction score
6,160
I guess it depends on your definition of inappropriate content. Doesn’t necessarily need to be physical acts which I am guessing you are referring to.
Definitely. Normalizing something that many find wrong or at least totally inappropriate for children is the problem here. I'm amazed at some of the people who see nothing wrong with relentlessly pushing this on very young children and deny that's what is being done.

My 5th grade teacher was gay. Of course we, as a bunch of 10-year-olds, didn't grasp that at the time. It wasn't until a few years later that we all realized the score. I asked my mom if she'd known, and she said, "Of course. Everybody knows he is." He was very popular, a heck of a good teacher, and parents tried to get their kids in his class. Nobody cared about his orientation because HE didn't make an issue of it at all. He wasn't trying to expose us to his lifestyle, educate us about homosexuality, and he had no social agenda. He was there to teach us about science, English, social studies, math, and history... PERIOD. Many of us would really like the agenda crap to end. It's not anyone else's right to force their social views and agenda on someone else's children.
 

TorontoGold

Mr. Dumb Moron
Messages
7,360
Reaction score
5,709
I guess it depends on your definition of inappropriate content. Doesn’t necessarily need to be physical acts which I am guessing you are referring to.
It also depends on yours. What specifically has Disney put in their content that is inappropriate?
 

Blazers46

Adjectives: wise/brilliant/handsome.
Messages
8,107
Reaction score
5,459
w
Definitely. Normalizing something that many find wrong or at least totally inappropriate for children is the problem here. I'm amazed at some of the people who see nothing wrong with relentlessly pushing this on very young children and deny that's what is being done.

My 5th grade teacher was gay. Of course we, as a bunch of 10-year-olds, didn't grasp that at the time. It wasn't until a few years later that we all realized the score. I asked my mom if she'd known, and she said, "Of course. Everybody knows he is." He was very popular, a heck of a good teacher, and parents tried to get their kids in his class. Nobody cared about his orientation because HE didn't make an issue of it at all. He wasn't trying to expose us to his lifestyle, educate us about homosexuality, and he had no social agenda. He was there to teach us about science, English, social studies, math, and history... PERIOD. Many of us would really like the agenda crap to end. It's not anyone else's right to force their social views and agenda on someone else's children.
We had a gay 4th grade teacher. He was in a straight marriage and then his wife found notes from another person/dude. We know this because his wife was a 6th grade teacher. Made for some very awkward moments.
 

Blazers46

Adjectives: wise/brilliant/handsome.
Messages
8,107
Reaction score
5,459
It also depends on yours. What specifically has Disney put in their content that is inappropriate?
You don’t question their intent at all? They fully admit their new mission is in direct response to the Florida bill not allowing this to be taught to very young children. I assume you’re smart. Wouldn’t their intent then be assumed to be aimed at the same audience?

You keep asking for specific content and to judge as a case by case but you can’t. It’s a full out attack from every angle. It’s more than just Disney. Disney is just the tip of the iceberg but is the story today. You add todays stories of Disney retaliating against the Florida law to expose young children to their propaganda and mix it with stories of yesterday showing boys suck on boy penis and a school board voting 8-1 saying it’s okay and it becomes a big propaganda machine. Your bar is obviously set pretty low, or you just don’t have children. I walk into Barnes and Nobel with my 5 and 8 year to buy my daughter a book for making honor roll and boom, right at the front door. It’s everywhere.B02E39DD-9375-4C3E-9E11-DB5EBCD50C03.jpeg
 

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,591
Reaction score
20,046
It also depends on yours. What specifically has Disney put in their content that is inappropriate?
You missed my point. I guess I should have said "It depends on ones definition". Where do you draw the line? What's appropriate and what's not? I know the question was asked already, but do you have kids?
 

TorontoGold

Mr. Dumb Moron
Messages
7,360
Reaction score
5,709
You missed my point. I guess I should have said "It depends on ones definition". Where do you draw the line? What's appropriate and what's not? I know the question was asked already, but do you have kids?
I didn't miss your point, at all. For many of the offended here, it seems like it's incredibly tough to find examples of what Disney has put in their content. Typically when I'm mad at something I have at least an idea of what's getting me upset. My line as I've said before is sexually explicit material. I believe that LGBTQ characters are allowed to have the same relationships on screen as straight characters, don't you?

I don't have kids currently but it's very much in the plans for the immediate future.
 

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,591
Reaction score
20,046
I didn't miss your point, at all. For many of the offended here, it seems like it's incredibly tough to find examples of what Disney has put in their content. Typically when I'm mad at something I have at least an idea of what's getting me upset. My line as I've said before is sexually explicit material. I believe that LGBTQ characters are allowed to have the same relationships on screen as straight characters, don't you?

I don't have kids currently but it's very much in the plans for the immediate future.
To me it's not a matter of showing the relationships as much as the amount that is being shown. I'm not referencing Disney in particular, but as I pointed out previously, the amount of alternate lifestyles that is being depicted on TV, movies, commercials, etc. is far more than the population of gays. Gallop shows the gay population to be about 5%. Another Gallop polls shows people think the gay population is greater than 20% with women thinking it is around 25%. The thought is the inaccuracy between the actual percentage and perceived is due to the vocal-ness of the gay population. Disney, TV, movies, commercials help drive that perception with the amount of LGBT content that is depicted.

I'm not saying it will happen, but I think your view on a number of things may change once you have kids. It's hard to describe, but paraphrasing Holtz's words, "For those that have kids no explanation is necessary. For those that don't, they don't understand."
 

Blazers46

Adjectives: wise/brilliant/handsome.
Messages
8,107
Reaction score
5,459
I didn't miss your point, at all. For many of the offended here, it seems like it's incredibly tough to find examples of what Disney has put in their content. Typically when I'm mad at something I have at least an idea of what's getting me upset. My line as I've said before is sexually explicit material. I believe that LGBTQ characters are allowed to have the same relationships on screen as straight characters, don't you?

I don't have kids currently but it's very much in the plans for the immediate future.
The statements and videos I have watched that Disney has put out or leaked about their gay initiative moving forward is enough for me. Its the intent. This intent combined with the intent of school districts and other left wing gay agenda is sickening. Of course we aren't going to have a Beauty and the Beast spin where Beauty is taking it up the rear from a beastly male creature. They will all be rated G/PG. Its seems Disney's goal is saturation not exploitation. Exploitation is obviously the schools/governments job.

Whats the rhetoric we hear... if you aren't black don't talk to me about racism, if you aren't a women don't tell me what to do with my body. Well here we are with a non-parent telling me whats okay for kids.
 

TorontoGold

Mr. Dumb Moron
Messages
7,360
Reaction score
5,709
To me it's not a matter of showing the relationships as much as the amount that is being shown. I'm not referencing Disney in particular, but as I pointed out previously, the amount of alternate lifestyles that is being depicted on TV, movies, commercials, etc. is far more than the population of gays. Gallop shows the gay population to be about 5%. Another Gallop polls shows people think the gay population is greater than 20% with women thinking it is around 25%. The thought is the inaccuracy between the actual percentage and perceived is due to the vocal-ness of the gay population. Disney, TV, movies, commercials help drive that perception with the amount of LGBT content that is depicted.

I'm not saying it will happen, but I think your view on a number of things may change once you have kids. It's hard to describe, but paraphrasing Holtz's words, "For those that have kids no explanation is necessary. For those that don't, they don't understand."

Following a capitalist line of thinking, it wouldn't be shown on TV if their wasn't a market for it. Look at all the "House wives of XYZ" obviously the strong majority of women are not like that yet they keep churning out that content. I guess we will agree to disagree on the impact of having gay representation being a negative thing.

There's a number of things we all have opinions on without first hand experience. Of course my opinion may adjust, but the core principles won't.
 

TorontoGold

Mr. Dumb Moron
Messages
7,360
Reaction score
5,709
The statements and videos I have watched that Disney has put out or leaked about their gay initiative moving forward is enough for me. Its the intent. This intent combined with the intent of school districts and other left wing gay agenda is sickening. Of course we aren't going to have a Beauty and the Beast spin where Beauty is taking it up the rear from a beastly male creature. They will all be rated G/PG. Its seems Disney's goal is saturation not exploitation. Exploitation is obviously the schools/governments job.

Whats the rhetoric we hear... if you aren't black don't talk to me about racism, if you aren't a women don't tell me what to do with my body. Well here we are with a non-parent telling me whats okay for kids.
The intent is that they want to increase representation? They aren't saying "We are going to convert your kids" or "the next movie will be watch these boys bang".

Seems your core issue is having gay characters in the content, #1's stance is whatever is the opposite of mine, and Bishop's is sexualization in the content of any kind. So it seems there are three different opinions at play here.

Also - lol @ gay agenda. Nothing like saying "hey come and be apart of this community that regularly faces backlash for just existing" what an enticing offer I'm sure a lot of people will take up that offer. It's 2022 there isn't a gay agenda lmao.
 

Blazers46

Adjectives: wise/brilliant/handsome.
Messages
8,107
Reaction score
5,459
To me it's not a matter of showing the relationships as much as the amount that is being shown. I'm not referencing Disney in particular, but as I pointed out previously, the amount of alternate lifestyles that is being depicted on TV, movies, commercials, etc. is far more than the population of gays. Gallop shows the gay population to be about 5%. Another Gallop polls shows people think the gay population is greater than 20% with women thinking it is around 25%. The thought is the inaccuracy between the actual percentage and perceived is due to the vocal-ness of the gay population. Disney, TV, movies, commercials help drive that perception with the amount of LGBT content that is depicted.

I'm not saying it will happen, but I think your view on a number of things may change once you have kids. It's hard to describe, but paraphrasing Holtz's words, "For those that have kids no explanation is necessary. For those that don't, they don't understand."

Its also worthy to note the relevance of the representation. Over 1/2 of the LGBTQ community identifies as bi-sexual. The vast majority of that 1/2 if female. Coming from a family of 8 and most of us working social work a few of us have stories where happily married women and some men that identify as bi-sexual for no other reason but to support the LBTQ community. I never really seen this for myself until I saw a former co-worker of mine have a status on her social media profile that she was bi. When I asked her about it she got all defensive and said it was none of my business (even though it was posted publicly) then blocked me on social media. My Brother works at a University and said there are men and women that self identify for the cause and they have advocated others do it as well to help the cause during work meetings. At the time I just thought it just wokies being woke and virtue signaling but never really thought about the impact on stats and representation, although things like this could barely move the needle. Just found it interesting.
 

Blazers46

Adjectives: wise/brilliant/handsome.
Messages
8,107
Reaction score
5,459
The intent is that they want to increase representation? They aren't saying "We are going to convert your kids" or "the next movie will be watch these boys bang".

Seems your core issue is having gay characters in the content, #1's stance is whatever is the opposite of mine, and Bishop's is sexualization in the content of any kind. So it seems there are three different opinions at play here.

Also - lol @ gay agenda. Nothing like saying "hey come and be apart of this community that regularly faces backlash for just existing" what an enticing offer I'm sure a lot of people will take up that offer. It's 2022 there isn't a gay agenda lmao.
Not my words just repeating a Disney Exec....

 

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,591
Reaction score
20,046
Following a capitalist line of thinking, it wouldn't be shown on TV if their wasn't a market for it. Look at all the "House wives of XYZ" obviously the strong majority of women are not like that yet they keep churning out that content. I guess we will agree to disagree on the impact of having gay representation being a negative thing.

There's a number of things we all have opinions on without first hand experience. Of course my opinion may adjust, but the core principles won't.
Maybe, maybe not. Hard to make that claim until you have had a family. For the record, I felt the same way as you many moons ago.
 
Top