Culture Welcome to Dismal Disney.

[posh-goofiness]

... And then have the county they are in run by Disney, which would crush the local inhabitants? Because by your claim they'd run the governorship, they could definitely run the local town. And that local town could give Disney a tax exemption, while using tax dollars to pay for Disney's policing. Which would be even better than Disney's current situation. Right now, Disney pays for 100% of what would normally be city services. In Orange county, they wouldn't have to.

So yes, by your logic.

First, I do not believe anything is useless. So. NO. "By my logic".

Second, better the county than the state. I would prefer neither. But since we have no good choices, what else is there to pick?

 

[Abhorsen]

First, I do not believe anything is useless. So. NO. "By my logic".

Second, better the county than the state. I would prefer neither. But since we have no good choices, what else is there to pick?

No, I mean the county option is actively bad, harms a ton of people, and actively helps Disney. The Governor, by contrast, is hard to control consistently, and can ride herd on Disney, meaning that Disney will likely stop meddling with at least local politics.

 

[Jormungandr]

@Abhorsen As others have echoed, DeSantis won't be there forever. And this is Disney we're talking about -- even if they're suffering financially, they can and will throw money to burn to make this issue "go away" or be in their favour.

Is it stupid going up against the US government? Yes. Will and can they do it? Unfortunately, yes.

Disney, as an entity, is that powerful. They have roots everywhere.

 

[Yinko]

even if they're suffering financially, they can and will throw money to burn to make this issue "go away" or be in their favour.

Maybe? This is just the latest in a long series of financial set-backs they've faced in the last 18-24 months. If they keep things up like this they will go bankrupt. They probably realize this which is why they did layoffs and then announced that they would be cutting back on Marvel and Star Wars projects.

 

[Abhorsen]

@Abhorsen As others have echoed, DeSantis won't be there forever. And this is Disney we're talking about -- even if they're suffering financially, they can and will throw money to burn to make this issue "go away" or be in their favour.

Is it stupid going up against the US government? Yes. Will and can they do it? Unfortunately, yes.

Disney, as an entity, is that powerful. They have roots everywhere.

If one accepts the premise that you put forward, that Disney can completely control the governor of Florida, than one must accept that the alternative proposal is both worse and more vulnerable to that type of attack.

Namely, the alternate proposal is to merge disneyworld with one of 2 neighboring counties, something that neither county wants. Ignoring temporarily the political and legal problems DeSantis would have to get through, subverting either of those 2 counties would be easier for Disney than subverting the governorship, worse for the people that live there, and better for Disney than their situation prior to all of this, as they can get the citizens to pay taxes to fund Disneyworld's stuff.

Looking at the two proposals, even knowing Disney is going to subvert either option, I'd prefer the governor. Because a subverted governor just leaves Disney alone.


And note, I don't even accept the premise that Disney wouldn't just give up, role over, and accept the new status quo. That's what businesses do. They are profit seeking, not power seeking. DeSantis basically showed Disney that he's now firmly in control, so Disney now can shut up and stop annoying the current governor and just take the sunk costs from this (not able to issue tax free bonds, a few other things), or spend millions to annoy a possible governor into stomping on them for little possible gain if their guy wins.

Basically, maybe Disney could win. They won't fight because it's too expensive and they don't win much by being in control vs just not annoying the guy in charge.

 

[Jormungandr]

If one accepts the premise that you put forward, that Disney can completely control the governor of Florida, than one must accept that the alternative proposal is both worse and more vulnerable to that type of attack.

Namely, the alternate proposal is to merge disneyworld with one of 2 neighboring counties, something that neither county wants. Ignoring temporarily the political and legal problems DeSantis would have to get through, subverting either of those 2 counties would be easier for Disney than subverting the governorship, worse for the people that live there, and better for Disney than their situation prior to all of this, as they can get the citizens to pay taxes to fund Disneyworld's stuff.

Looking at the two proposals, even knowing Disney is going to subvert either option, I'd prefer the governor. Because a subverted governor just leaves Disney alone.


And note, I don't even accept the premise that Disney wouldn't just give up, role over, and accept the new status quo. That's what businesses do. They are profit seeking, not power seeking. DeSantis basically showed Disney that he's now firmly in control, so Disney now can shut up and stop annoying the current governor and just take the sunk costs from this (not able to issue tax free bonds, a few other things), or spend millions to annoy a possible governor into stomping on them for little possible gain if their guy wins.

Basically, maybe Disney could win. They won't fight because it's too expensive and they don't win much by being in control vs just not annoying the guy in charge.

Ah, see that's the major caveat: while the shareholders of Disney are profit-seeking, the people running it have become more and more into the whole "power-seeking" direction.

They, like other companies on their level like Google and Facebook, want to control people. It's all about pushing agendas and messages now -- that's why we've seen major franchises under their care crash and burn and lose money (Star Wars, Marvel, et cetera).

So, yes: I can absolutely see Disney doing their best to subvert or do other such underhanded things.

 

[Abhorsen]

The new Disney Decision matrix:

	Disney Shuts up	Disney Shouts about Wokeness and Florida Law
Dem Governor	Disney can't issue tax free bonds. Disney may be harassed for being antiworker.	Disney can't issue tax free bonds. Otherwise Disney is left alone.
Republican Governor	Disney can't issue tax free bonds. Otherwise Disney is left alone.	The governor harasses Disney for not shutting up, costing them money.

The Disney decision matrix for removing special district:

Control the county government.

Ah, see that's the major caveat: while the shareholders of Disney are profit-seeking, the people running it have become more and more into the whole "power-seeking" direction.

They, like other companies on their level like Google and Facebook, want to control people. It's all about pushing agendas and messages now -- that's why we've seen major franchises under their care crash and burn and lose money (Star Wars, Marvel, et cetera).

So, yes: I can absolutely see Disney doing their best to subvert or do other such underhanded things.

Oh, so by this logic they'd be doing it anyway, regardless of what DeSantis wants. Like how they managed to stop the Election of DeSantis in 2022... Oh, wait.

And again, you've failed to explain why destroying the special district harms Disney more than what DeSantis chose.

 

[posh-goofiness]

I don't think that decision matrix is right, though. It lacks that many ways that corruption might play out. With this move, the scale of any such corruptive actions is greater and worse. Before, when they had their special privileges they had no incentives, only drawbacks, to meddling in Floridian politics at any level. Now, there's an element of government interference in their fiefdom so, consequently, there are now incentives and a different set of drawbacks to their meddling in Floridian politics. New avenues for kickbacks, new avenues for lobbying, new avenues for their Malthusian social engineering, etc.

As to your second question for @Jormungandr why destroying the special district harms Disney more than the current choice- It's is the public humiliation that their choice to support child mutilation and pedophilia cost them right at home in their crown jewel. A large fuck you from the people of Florida delivered through the governor the establishment tried to block.

The money they can tax out of them and any other government interference, shall we say, while it lasts is the other harm. Additionally, while I believe Disney will now expend quite a bit of effort to retain that control I also acknowledge that it would be harmful to the county where Disney resides. However, I think it's much easier to combat them at the local level than at the state level then at the federal level. Let's say they were able to control the county council or board or whatever structure is there. There's a lot the citizenry can do to express their displeasure. There's a fire? Eh, maybe the engine got there just a little bit slower than it does for residents. Police incident? Maybe Disney get the maximum fines? Small claims? Maybe they lose now, forever. And on and on.

Edit: Forgot to tag @Abhorsen

 

[Abhorsen]

I don't think that decision matrix is right, though. It lacks that many ways that corruption might play out. With this move, the scale of any such corruptive actions is greater and worse. Before, when they had their special privileges they had no incentives, only drawbacks, to meddling in Floridian politics at any level. Now, there's an element of government interference in their fiefdom so, consequently, there are now incentives and a different set of drawbacks to their meddling in Floridian politics. New avenues for kickbacks, new avenues for lobbying, new avenues for their Malthusian social engineering, etc.

So your solution then is to do nothing to Disney? Because by your argument, that is optimal.

And no, Disney is not solely capable of winning and corrupting the Florida government without pissing away way too much money that it's not worth it.

Understand that the only corruption that matters to disney is the governor. Not the legislature, just the governor. Corruption doesn't work by targeting a particular person though. Because a person can be good. Corruption works by targeting a system. Basically you can bribe a congressman, but you can't necessarily bribe a specific one. And usually that's fine, but it won't work here.

As to your second question for @Jormungandr why destroying the special district harms Disney more than the current choice- It's is the public humiliation that their choice to support child mutilation and pedophilia cost them right at home in their crown jewel. A large fuck you from the people of Florida delivered through the governor the establishment tried to block.

Ah, so you claim this is symbolic and does nothing in reality. If the symbolism is what matters, than making the board DeSantis' bitch should count.

The money they can tax out of them and any other government interference, shall we say, while it lasts is the other harm.

You mean the money that DeSantis can tax right now? And the interference DeSantis can do right now that's a lot easier than he could if he abolished the special district?

However, I think it's much easier to combat them at the local level than at the state level then at the federal level. Let's say they were able to control the county council or board or whatever structure is there. There's a lot the citizenry can do to express their displeasure. There's a fire? Eh, maybe the engine got there just a little bit slower than it does for residents. Police incident? Maybe Disney get the maximum fines? Small claims? Maybe they lose now, forever. And on and on.

No, the local is a lot easier to control. A huge amount easier to control. First, they have a few thousand employees who live in the county, who are already predisposed to vote Disney. Second, it costs almost nothing to buy a local election, and each dollar goes a ton further. A huge campaign can be run for a county post for high 5 to low six figures. A 4 figure contribution is huge. Meanwhile, the Florida governorship costs about 8 figures. 2 order of magnitudes more. And also, it's important to note that this local corruption happens all the time already with other semi-similar stuff. Public funding for stadiums is a classic example. Disney would now be publicly funded by taxpayers.

There's a reason neither of the two neighboring counties wanted Disney.


Also, you are ignoring the legal problems of canceling the local government: it's in debt. Who would assume that debt? It's technically not Disney's debt, so Disney could sue any attempt to tax just them. On top of that, there are other legal problems with just canceling the special district, all of which would get clogged in a lawsuit. Then after 4 years of delay on the lawsuit there will be an election DeSantis can't participate in because of Florida term limit laws. If the Disney funded Dems win, they can either overturn the law or concede the lawsuit, while state money is pissed away defending the lawsuit.

... Or, do this, where it's clearly legal, and any disney lawsuit will be paid by the Special district, which can tax disney to pay off the fees.

It's a brilliant solution.

 

[Bear Ribs]

So your solution then is to do nothing to Disney? Because by your argument, that is optimal.

And no, Disney is not solely capable of winning and corrupting the Florida government without pissing away way too much money that it's not worth it.

Understand that the only corruption that matters to disney is the governor. Not the legislature, just the governor. Corruption doesn't work by targeting a particular person though. Because a person can be good. Corruption works by targeting a system. Basically you can bribe a congressman, but you can't necessarily bribe a specific one. And usually that's fine, but it won't work here.

Ah, so you claim this is symbolic and does nothing in reality. If the symbolism is what matters, than making the board DeSantis' bitch should count.


You mean the money that DeSantis can tax right now? And the interference DeSantis can do right now that's a lot easier than he could if he abolished the special district?


No, the local is a lot easier to control. A huge amount easier to control. First, they have a few thousand employees who live in the county, who are already predisposed to vote Disney. Second, it costs almost nothing to buy a local election, and each dollar goes a ton further. A huge campaign can be run for a county post for high 5 to low six figures. A 4 figure contribution is huge. Meanwhile, the Florida governorship costs about 8 figures. 2 order of magnitudes more. And also, it's important to note that this local corruption happens all the time already with other semi-similar stuff. Public funding for stadiums is a classic example. Disney would now be publicly funded by taxpayers.

There's a reason neither of the two neighboring counties wanted Disney.


Also, you are ignoring the legal problems of canceling the local government: it's in debt. Who would assume that debt? It's technically not Disney's debt, so Disney could sue any attempt to tax just them. On top of that, there are other legal problems with just canceling the special district, all of which would get clogged in a lawsuit. Then after 4 years of delay on the lawsuit there will be an election DeSantis can't participate in because of Florida term limit laws. If the Disney funded Dems win, they can either overturn the law or concede the lawsuit, while state money is pissed away defending the lawsuit.

... Or, do this, where it's clearly legal, and any disney lawsuit will be paid by the Special district, which can tax disney to pay off the fees.

It's a brilliant solution.

I'm really wondering exactly how much you imagine it takes to bribe a governor. Your ideas here fly dramatically in the face of all known records on how bribery works and what we know of the amounts involved. How much do you think it costs to bribe a governor? How much do you think it costs to bribe a local county-level politician?

 

[Abhorsen]

I'm really wondering exactly how much you imagine it takes to bribe a governor. Your ideas here fly dramatically in the face of all known records on how bribery works and what we know of the amounts involved. How much do you think it costs to bribe a governor? How much do you think it costs to bribe a local county-level politician?

I'm not going by bribery for the governor, as out and out bribery is rare (and with warchests this big for governor, why take a bribe when it might be easier to do financial fuckery with your warchest?) I'm going by how much it costs to run an election in Florida, as lobbying and doing a PAC is legal. In 2018, both sides spent about $50M, and it was very, very close. Now running from behind, Disney would have to spend enough money to flip the state from a solid red to blue in the governors seat, which sounds in the low 8 figure range, given what is spent anyways. Remember, a lot of the dem money will have fled to winnable races, so the new candidate is going to be hungry. Oh, and I didn't even talk about the money needed for the primary.

As for local, I doubt it'd be much. It'd either be merged into Orange or Oscala county, both of which are Dem leaning places. Orange County voted for Crist in 2022, and both voted Biden in 2020. On top of that, you'd have the thousands of Disney employees willing to vote in whatever neighboring county there is, being promised better jobs if they help Disney get public funding for a new Ride or whatever.

 

[Terthna]

They are profit seeking, not power seeking.

Unfortunately, that's where ESG funding comes in and mucks up the whole system. Companies are literally being paid to make propaganda now, which has opened the door for ideology to trump profits in the business world, and at this point it's going to be extremely painful (if not impossible) for a lot of companies to reverse course. I mean look at what happened to Bob Chapek; the guy who tried and failed to do exactly that.

 

[Abhorsen]

Unfortunately, that's where ESG funding comes in and mucks up the whole system. Companies are literally being paid to make propaganda now, which has opened the door for ideology to trump profits in the business world, and at this point it's going to be extremely painful (if not impossible) for a lot of companies to reverse course. I mean look at what happened to Bob Chapek; the guy who tried and failed to do exactly that.

Yeah, that is a little iffy, I agree. But they do ESG because the investing companies want ESG, and use it as a smokescreen to cover bad earnings reports.

Anyway, the idea this is a loss is just dumb. This is the first time I've heard of a company being legally punished by a US government for being woke.

 

[bintananth]

I never thought I'd ever see @Abhorsen support and defend a government act, but here we are.

 

[Abhorsen]

I never thought I'd ever see @Abhorsen support and defend a government act, but here we are.

I'm mostly pointing out that it isn't a give in, and is a win for DeSantis politically, not Disney. Morally and libertarianly, I tend to be ambivalent to it. As I note here:

So you'd rather he just collapse and leave them completely alone then? Honestly, I'd be fine with that as well (I'm always wary of governments lashing out a business), but I think this is a judicious, carefully done one.

I'd be fine with DeSantis leaving Disney alone. I think Disney's special tax district is really a win-win for everyone, as it means they handle all of their sanitation and thus don't pay taxes.

But I am 100% for pushback against ESG (which I consider to be defrauding shareholders) and am dubious of lobbying. This seems to be the ideal way for government to act, given that government will act: you step outta line, we kick you, we move on. There could certainly be problems in the future though, but I'm not going to die on Disney's right to not be taxed when they've completely fucked up copyright and other assorted shit.

I would be absolutely against the option of the government taking on the $1B in debt from Disney's district. Really, that's Disney's debt to pay off, and putting that on either of the neighboring two counties is just wrong.

 

[posh-goofiness]

So your solution then is to do nothing to Disney? Because by your argument, that is optimal.

Again, putting words in my mouth.

Ah, so you claim this is symbolic and does nothing in reality. If the symbolism is what matters, than making the board DeSantis' bitch should count.

These should have been put together. It's both symbolic and tangible because the loss of their fiefdom has both tangible and intangible costs.

And no, Disney is not solely capable of winning and corrupting the Florida government without pissing away way too much money that it's not worth it.

Understand that the only corruption that matters to disney is the governor. Not the legislature, just the governor. Corruption doesn't work by targeting a particular person though. Because a person can be good. Corruption works by targeting a system. Basically you can bribe a congressman, but you can't necessarily bribe a specific one. And usually that's fine, but it won't work here.

I don't understand your distinction here. If you can bribe a congressman you are bribing a specific one. Do you mean making corruption easier under the systems in place? Are you joking? Humans are plenty corruptible on their own. The system just makes it easier to get away with it. And you know this, it's one of the many reasons why Libertarians want small government in the first place.

You mean the money that DeSantis can tax right now? And the interference DeSantis can do right now that's a lot easier than he could if he abolished the special district?

I can concede on this point. It's certainly easier to do it this way, with the unfortunate side effects I believe will occur as I stated in my previous posts. But then again, leaving a job half done is always easier to do.

No, the local is a lot easier to control. A huge amount easier to control. First, they have a few thousand employees who live in the county, who are already predisposed to vote Disney. Second, it costs almost nothing to buy a local election, and each dollar goes a ton further. A huge campaign can be run for a county post for high 5 to low six figures. A 4 figure contribution is huge. Meanwhile, the Florida governorship costs about 8 figures. 2 order of magnitudes more. And also, it's important to note that this local corruption happens all the time already with other semi-similar stuff. Public funding for stadiums is a classic example. Disney would now be publicly funded by taxpayers.

There's a reason neither of the two neighboring counties wanted Disney.

As I've said in a previous post, while I'm not wild about having to accept a whole county of people now needing to be a shield in this matter but I think it's much more preferable than keeping this a state-level issue. However, if the majority of a county are employee's of Disney, then it shouldn't be too much of problem now would it? If anything, it grants them a new lever to use or fight over with Disney.

Also, you are ignoring the legal problems of canceling the local government: it's in debt. Who would assume that debt? It's technically not Disney's debt, so Disney could sue any attempt to tax just them. On top of that, there are other legal problems with just canceling the special district, all of which would get clogged in a lawsuit. Then after 4 years of delay on the lawsuit there will be an election DeSantis can't participate in because of Florida term limit laws. If the Disney funded Dems win, they can either overturn the law or concede the lawsuit, while state money is pissed away defending the lawsuit.

... Or, do this, where it's clearly legal, and any disney lawsuit will be paid by the Special district, which can tax disney to pay off the fees.

It's a brilliant solution.

I honestly didn't consider this at all. I'm not even sure this scenario could happen at all. We, in a class action for example, certainly can't sue the government about the truly ridiculous amount of government debt that we have been involuntarily saddled with. So sure, Disney could attempt to sue over this- but, well, I think they'd get the case dismissed. The state wouldn't even need to entertain this.

 

[Abhorsen]

Again, putting words in my mouth.

No, I'm not. I'm making a reasonable conclusion:

Before, when they had their special privileges they had no incentives, only drawbacks, to meddling in Floridian politics at any level. Now, there's an element of government interference in their fiefdom so, consequently, there are now incentives and a different set of drawbacks to their meddling in Floridian politics.

Clearly, doing something makes Florida worse and more interfereable. The logical conclusion of what to do, if you believe Disney can and will corrupt everything, is to do nothing and leave the box of evil sealed lest you give them more power.

These should have been put together. It's both symbolic and tangible because the loss of their fiefdom has both tangible and intangible costs.

It can't be put together. Putting DeSantis in charge of a major city's board, where every action he takes against Disney will hit the innocent occupants, is not politically feasible, nevermind legally.

I don't understand your distinction here. If you can bribe a congressman you are bribing a specific one. Do you mean making corruption easier under the systems in place? Are you joking? Humans are plenty corruptible on their own. The system just makes it easier to get away with it. And you know this, it's one of the many reasons why Libertarians want small government in the first place.

No. When a company bribes (read: lobbies) a congressman, they don't just pull a name out of a hat. They look for someone sympathetic to their cause or at least not opposed to it, and lobbiable (that's nearly every congressman). Thats why they lobby congressmen and senators, because there are a lot of them, it's easy to find some that are inclined towards you, so you get them to make your ideas central and more important. What I'm saying is that not every human is buyable.

The problem with a governor is that the specific governor might not be 'bribable' by disney. DeSantis certainly isn't, because Disney is much more valuable to him as a target. Possibly the same with the next R governor if they aren't a RINO and are an idiot.

So yes, humans are corruptible, but as an individual, not corruptible by anything and anyone. But get a group together, and enough members will be corruptible by anything and anyone.

Take alcohol. Not everyone is susceptible to being an alcoholic or even drinking it. But grab a big enough group together, and you'll have some who are. It's the same thing with being able to be lobbied and being able to be lobbied by a particular group.

As I've said in a previous post, while I'm not wild about having to accept a whole county of people now needing to be a shield in this matter but I think it's much more preferable than keeping this a state-level issue. However, if the majority of a county are employee's of Disney, then it shouldn't be too much of problem now would it? If anything, it grants them a new lever to use or fight over with Disney.

Not the majority! Just a stable minority. Which absolutely gives them a solid voter base in local election most don't care about voting in, but means that they hold hostage Orlando (it's in Orange County).

As for giving 'them' a lever, it doesn't. By merging the counties, it gives the lever of power over Disney to the county government. If Disney controls that county government, Disney controls the power over Disney and also the surrounding area. Given Orlando is a blue area (as is the other possible county), it actually gives Disney more reason to go woke.



Also, we are ignoring that abolishing the special district would basically be giving Disney a $1B loan forgiveness.

 

[Pocky Balboa]

The Rat, not having learned the first time, continues to provide reasons for Florida Man to exterminate it:

 

[Pocky Balboa]

Hahaha, thanks for the legal ammo, Iger! I was watching that livestream coverage of the shareholder meeting and I LOL'd hard when the fucker conflated Disney with Reedy Creek:

 

[Husky_Khan]

Apparently Disney is planning on making a LIVE ACTION remake of the classic animated film Moana. Despite the passage of time since the release of that immortalized film, Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson and Auliʻi Cravalho (who portrayed Princess Moana) will apparently star in this film.

Keep in mind the actual animated film was released only seven f'ing years ago and now they are already making a remake.

Moana: Another Disney remake but is it too soon?

Dwayne Johnson announces a live action remake of Moana just seven years after its animated release.

www.bbc.com

After sinking with Black Adam The Rock is ready to milk another passion project dry to fund his steroid habit massive ego or whatever... I dunno.

If anything they should remake shitty films, like The Last Jedi or Raya and The Last Dragon or maybe give Mulan another try.