49 karma · joined March 22, 2020
Commenting on Disney paying money to an antisemetic company that distributes child abuse material is irrelevant in a thread about Disney not paying money to an allegedly antisemetic company.
Sorry, I suppose it's another "whataboutism"...
Gotcha. One rule for me and another for thee.
It says a lot about people when they'd prefer to believe a comfortable lie, than be told an uncomfortable truth.
I never once defended Musk's idiocy, but you've made it clear that you have no problems with child abuse, anti-Semitism, or hypocrisy.
Best of luck to ya.
> The End.
Pretending to do the right thing whilst actively doing the exact opposite might make Disney look better to anyone not paying attention but it's not marketing, it's just lying.
And this is what they're doing with data they illegally harvested from children: https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2023-11-30...
(and there are many more examples)
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/disney-s-iger-take...
"By him taking the position that he took in quite a public manner, we just felt that the association with that position, and with Elon Musk, and X was not necessarily a positive one for us and we decided we would pull our advertising."
This is in reference Musk's 'anti-Semitic' tweet. So instead of just voting with his wallet, Bob has turned it into a virtue flex, which would also be fine if they weren't actively supporting other platforms that are known to be far worse. (And that's ignoring Meta's issues with child abuse)
If Bob has a personal problem with Musk, then let it be know. I could totally understand that, especially after Musk's recent interviews.
But hiding behind a virtue signalling flex when Disney are actively supporting platforms that are as bad or worse is straight up hypocrisy.
Even if we ignore the child abuse and focus on antisemitism, it doesn't take long to find out how bad Facebook is:
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-58058428 Anti-Semitic social posts 'not taken down' in 80% of cases - 2 August 2021 "Facebook was the worst performer, CCDH said, failing to act on 89% of posts."
Similar articles can be found on The Guardian, NPR, and many others.
Also, you forgot the bit about how much Meta spends on lawyers suing federal agencies so they can use data they scraped from their underage users:
https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2023-11-30...
https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/31/23005576/facebook-content...
And also, there's this: https://www.thestreet.com/investing/disney-has-a-plan-to-tar...
https://www.reuters.com/legal/new-mexico-sues-meta-ceo-zucke...
And thank you. It's a pleasure to have an actual dialog rather than just being accused of being a nazi when asking a question or putting forward an opinion (The with us or against us war cry of BLM I referred to earlier)
> Martin Luther King didn't talk all his life about race because he wanted to but because he had to : it's the structural problem #1 of the USA.
I would argue racism is a symptom of a deeper issue. If I would have to name "structural problem #1" in the western world I would say access to a quality education. I referenced an appropriate MLK quote in a previous reply: "I am convinced that men hate each other because they fear each other. They fear each other because they don’t know each other, and they don’t know each other because they don’t communicate with each other." A quality education should fix people not knowing each other and give them the ability to communicate to one another, and racism might be a solved issue in a single generation.
> Obviously things are better than in his days, and in his days there were better than before the civil war. That doesn't mean there are right today.
100% - there is lots of room for improvement.
> Again why the powerful hatred against Obamacare? It makes zero sense on economic grounds.
I agree with you, it makes no sense on economic grounds. Nor in my opinion on humanitarian grounds, or any grounds for that matter. I am very much in favour of public healthcare and wouldn't stop there but include education, transport, essential services etc etc etc but there are issues there too. (Just ask anyone who works in the NHS in the UK or a public health service in Australia)
It's not a racial issue tho. MLK again: "Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in healthcare is the most shocking and inhumane." - once again no mention of race, but a mention of inequality - the topic of this original post.
Republicans tend to be opposed to public services and it was primarily republicans who reduced Obamacare to the shadow of its former self. But being a republican or believing in privatisation doesn't make somebody a racist. Believe it or not, there are people who genuinely believe privatisation is in the best interest of the public. As I mentioned above, spend some time talking to workers in public health in Australia and England. It won't take you long to find one who believes they should privitise everything, even if they're life-long left-leaning party voters.
> Just before he was assassinated, Martin Luther King was leading the "Poor People's Campaign" As you can imagine it was not focused on race but on poverty.
MLK was a true hero.
> And people who love the skin of color quote usually don't want to talk about poverty.
This doesn't follow logically for me. If someone is quoting MLK and talking about being judged not by the colour of their skin but the content of their character, surely they'd much prefer to talk about poverty rather than race? Certainly it is that way for me.
Reducing every difference to race and every issue to racism is not productive. If it's productive and useful I could talk about solving poverty all day, but the minute someone suggests their opinion holds more weight because of the colour of their skin I turn off and immediately lose all respect for them. Why? Because I'd prefer to be judged by the content of my character (and my life experiences) and not the colour of my skin. If we all did that there would be no race debate.
--
Anyway I'm turning off for the day but thank you for the chat. People always have more in common than they think, if only they'd take the time to listen (reminds me of that MLK quote!) You've helped renew my faith in people.
I didn't laser focus on this one quote, my previous reply includes several other quotes of his. Perhaps it is a complete travesty of his thoughts to ignore something he said in what is his most famous speech?
> Martin Luther King was describing an ideal society in the far future that looks nothing like our messy present.
Indeed, a future where his children "will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." But as I said in my previous reply, the race debate as it stands in our "messy present" does the opposite of this.
> Do you think Martin Luther King purpose in life is fairly summarized by "Hey we have talked too much about racism already" ?
Where did I say that? I'm talking to you about racism now.
> "even today we have not permitted ourselves to reject or to feel remorse for this shameful episode"
Unfortunately MLK didn't live to see Obama become president, Michael Jordan dominate the NBA, or Lizzo playing James Madison's crystal flute.
Another MLK quote from his book "Why We Can't Wait":
> "Lamentably, it is a historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals."
Note he says nothing about race here. This quote has more to do with "pretax and posttax income inequality" than race does. Reducing inequality to racism is naive at best.
He also said "Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that." and "Be The Peace You Wish To See In The World!" and "I am convinced that men hate each other because they fear each other. They fear each other because they don’t know each other, and they don’t know each other because they don’t communicate with each other, and they don’t communicate with each other because they are separated from each other"
The race debate (You're either with us or against us!) as it stands in the USA today would have MLK rolling in his grave.
"We try to communicate "I understand" and go on to provide a personal anecdote. Our story is usually of something that we think is in the experiential vicinity of what someone is sharing with us. This, however, is not empathy."
The easiest way to be kind and considerate is to listen and attempt to understand rather than making assumptions. Even on the Internet :)
Thank you for your wisdom. I have been saying something along these lines for a long time, but never so eloquently.
When you die you take absolutely nothing with you except your reputation.
People will judge you based on the values and trends of the day, and chastise you for not being or doing X or Y better.
In other words, you took your reputation with you when you died.
I bet these filthy men also contributed to the spread of disease, there's no way they washed their hands for 20 seconds every time. I bet these immoral citizens compromised the health of their children by painting their walls with leaded paint too.
;)
I look at it slightly differently. I interpret it as, you take your reputation with you to the grave because when you die, your reputation as it stands, is as dead as you are.
How you act while you're around will be interpreted in one way, but when you're gone, you are no longer around to defend your reputation, or to act in a way that reflects the times.
In this way many people, and especially white males, have had their reputation tarnished. Instead of being good, accomplished, respectable people, they have been labeled racist or sexist or misogynist, and have had their achievements diminished or taken away from them entirely.
Don't believe me? Look for articles in the Guardian or NY Times about Albert Einstein, Shakespeare, Gandhi, Nietzsche, Bill Hicks, DH Lawrence, and on and on and on and on.
Apparently it's trendy to take people out of the context in which they existed, and judge them based on a different one entirely.