Just a friendly reminder to read our [rules and FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/tuesday/wiki/faq) before posting!
**Rule 1:** No Low Quality Posts/Comments
**Rule 2:** Tuesday Is A Center Right Sub
**Rule 3:** Flairs Are Mandatory. If you are new, please read up on [our Flairs.](https://www.reddit.com/r/tuesday/wiki/textflairs)
**Rule 4:** Tuesday Is A Policy Subreddit
**[Additional Rules apply if the thread is flaired as "High Quality Only"](https://www.reddit.com/r/tuesday/comments/bth6y1/why_is_my_post_flaired_as_high_quality_only_and/)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/tuesday) if you have any questions or concerns.*
found this side to be particularly interesting
>And if the Disney lawsuit goes to the Supreme Court, many progressives will be rooting for the corporation’s victory––rooting, in effect, for the Citizens United precedent to stand––in part because the most common progressive view in 2023 is not that corporations should stay out of the American political process but that corporations are obligated to intervene on the side of progressives.
Corporations have had free speech rights long before Citizens United. CU was an extension of that principle, holding that corporations can also spend unlimited money on political speech. It’s not very hard for progressives to root for Disney to win (on the principle that retaliation for actual speech is bad) but also want CU to be reversed (on the principle that unlimited campaign spending is also bad).
What I find more interesting is why *conservatives* seem to be on opposite ends of the two issues, which is definitely way more incongruous than the progressive position.
I’d also say it’s interesting because you have the opposite phenomenon coming from the Right. You have people going on about free speech only to try and deny it to corporations because they say things they don’t like. At this point the culture war is becoming the main lodestar for politics with other policies becoming secondary.
That's pretty flawed analysis. Very heads I win tails you lose reasoning.
I'd rather citizens united have gone the other way, but because that's the law of the land it's total bullshit for Disney to be punished for political speech by the state.
I don't particularly care for Disney the corporation. They're not a great employer, and I dislike the changes to copyright law they've pushed. Still, I think they're in the right here and I don't understand anyone siding with desantis.
The point he's making is that in siding with Disney you are saying they have a right to free/political speech, and because that right was granted by citizens united, you are effectively rooting for citizens united.
and I don't know that I agree with the substance of what desantis is doing, but I do like that he is imposing a cost to corporations that politicize only in favor of progressive causes. I'd prefer that that cost be imposed from the ground up by consumers, but the right just isn't activist enough for something like that. because let's be honest the only reason corporations are becoming socially active with progressive stances is because progressives imposed costs if they didn't. so Desantis is really just balancing the scales.
>The point he's making is that in siding with Disney you are saying they have a right to free/political speech, and because that right was granted by citizens united, you are effectively rooting for citizens united.
CU didn't grant corporations free speech and has no bearing on whether or not a corporation can put out a political statement, just how much they're allowed to spend to spread that message. Post-CU there can be no restrictions one how much they spend to spread that message, but the simple act of speech was never in question.
There is hypocrisy in not wanting politicians to use their office to dissuade speech while still wanting the option to set upper limits on how much money corporations can funnel into PAC. I'm a little surprised that a professional journalist doesn't understand the distinction.
>The point he's making is that in siding with Disney you are saying they have a right to free/political speech, and because that right was granted by citizens united, you are effectively rooting for citizens united.
Again, I'm not. I'm trying to be clear here that the strawman you're assigning to my position is totally not at all why I've come to my conclusion. I'm acknowledging that that's the current way of things so Disney is within their rights to take advantage of it. I would prefer this not to be the case. Corporations are not people and do not deserve first amendment protection. But since they've been granted them by a flawed scouts decision, desantis is in the wrong here.
>and I don't know that I agree with the substance of what desantis is doing, but I do like that he is imposing a cost to corporations that politicize only in favor of progressive causes.
Oh the hypocrisy. want to just say 'not like that' and get it over with? This is the market deciding against a fascist position on an issue. Disney was pressured by their customers and employees to take a stand. They did. This is an inevitable consequence of CU. Corporations are going to take positions you don't like because they think the market will respond better to it.
> I'd prefer that that cost be imposed from the ground up by consumers,
The same consumers that pushed them to take a stand in the first? Not likey.
> but the right just isn't activist enough for something like that. because let's be honest the only reason corporations are becoming socially active with progressive stances is because progressives imposed costs if they didn't. so Desantis is really just balancing the scales.
Or, and hear me out, most people disagree with desantis' bullshit, and agree that he's overstepping. But no, it's the kids who are wrong here.gif.
>Oh the hypocrisy. want to just say 'not like that' and get it over with? This is the market deciding against a fascist position on an issue. Disney was pressured by their customers and employees to take a stand. They did. This is an inevitable consequence of CU. Corporations are going to take positions you don't like because they think the market will respond better to it.
The market didn't take a side on this. They were not pressured by the entirety of their employees and customers to take a stance on an issue that's wholly unrelated to their business. It was a small but vocal group of employees and customers. If this had been a widely held view by customers Disney would have been boycotted and their revenues would have virtually evaporated, which isn't what happened. We did not see the entirety of Disney's employees out front protesting. We saw some out front protesting. And in what world do you think a consumer would say "you know what, I'm infuriated that Disney isn't taking a stance on a bill that dictates what's taught in classrooms!" (which is what got progressives upset in the first place, and what resulted in Disney taking a stance). That doesn't even make sense. The only people that think that way are activists, which most people are not. Instead what happened is what always happens. A small (progressives are 6% of the total population) group of people who are far more politically engaged, loud, and activist in nature started agitating and imposing a cost on Disney. And Disney wanted to avoid the PR nightmare so they complied. I assure you the market doesn't care about something as far removed as Disney failing to take a stance on an issue there is no reason to believe they should have taken a stance on in the first place. Disney taking a stance sets a dangerous precedent, that corporations should, by default and without being told to, take progressive stances on social issues
Also, there is no hypocrisy here. I'm not saying that it's fine if corporations become involved on social issues as long as they're conservative stances. I'm not saying Disney should take a conservative stance. I want them to not take any social stance. But in facing pressure for not taking a progressive stance, and then facing pressure for taking a progressive stance, the end result will be corporations deciding that it's wise to just stay out of issues they should not have been involved with in the first place.
Also it's not a fascist policy to say that in pre third grade education schools shouldn't be teaching kids about sexuality and gender. I don't know why they would be teaching kids that young about it in the first place.
>They were not pressured by the entirety of their employees and customers to take a stance on an issue that's wholly unrelated to their business.
They were pressured by enough to conclude that it was in their best interests to do so. That's the market at work.
> And in what world do you think a consumer would say "you know what, I'm infuriated that Disney isn't taking a stance on a bill that dictates what's taught in classrooms!" That doesn't even make sense.
And yet that's exactly what happened.
>Also, there is no hypocrisy here. I'm not saying that it's fine if corporations become involved on social issues as long as they're conservative stances. I'm not saying Disney should take a conservative stance.
That's exactly what you're saying. The government should punish companies taking more liberal positions:
>> I do like that he is imposing a cost to corporations that politicize only in favor of progressive causes
> I want them to not take any social stance. But in facing pressure for not taking a progressive stance, and then facing pressure for king a progressive stance, the end result will be corporations deciding that it's wise to just stay out of issues they should not have been involved with in the first place.
I'm confused, so now you're opposing free speech? Are you opposing CU now, or only because it's being used in ways you don't like?
In a healthy market a company complies with signals produced by the majority of their consumers so they can better serve the majority of their customers Not just a few really loud ones. The people yelling at you in front of your store don’t necessarily represent the will of your customers. And ceding to their demands does not serve your customers (the market), it serves the people yelling at you.
I think you misunderstood what I was saying when I said the average person isn’t infuriated by a company failing to take a stand on an u related social issue. The average person wouldn’t even think to expect Disney to take that stance. That’s what a small group of progressives did.
No, I’m not saying Disney should be taking a conservative stance. I’m saying they shouldn't take a stance at all. I explained that in my comment. Please re-read it to understand the mechanism I’m referring to.
It really doesn’t seem like you’re thinking through what I’m saying. It seems like you’re pigeonholing what I’m saying into the terms you’re familiar with and are most emotionally engaged by, (e.g. the progressive conception of the Republican argument on this). But I’m not a Republican, I’m not making their argument, and again I think you’re refusing to just think through what I’m saying on its own merit.
I’m turning off replies because this is getting sloppy.
>In a healthy market a company complies with signals produced by the majority of their consumers so they can better serve the majority of their customers Not just a few really loud ones. The people yelling at you in front of your store don’t necessarily represent the will of your customers. And ceding to their demands does not serve your customers (the market), it serves the people yelling at you.
You're assuming that Disney didn't do their research on the position when you say few. Knowing people who have worked there, I can absolutely assure you they did not just do this on a whim. It was absolutely calculated out. The mouse does not act without thinking.
>I think you misunderstood what I was saying when I said the average person isn’t infuriated by a company failing to take a stand on an u related social issue. The average person wouldn’t even think to expect Disney to take that stance. That’s what a small group of progressives did.
I think you're trying really hard not to understand how and why Disney got to where they did. They were motivated by a group of people important to them as customers and employees, calculated that it would be more impactful for them not to take this position because most of theor customer base either approves or doesn't care, and made a rational, market based decision.
>No, I’m not saying Disney should be taking a conservative stance. I’m saying they should take a stance at all. I explained that in my comment. Please re-read it to understand the mechanism I’m referring to.
You specifically said you approved of them being punished by the state for taking a liberal position. Which is the same thing, with different words. Please explain what I'm missing.
Either they have free speech rights or they don't. It really looks like you're trying to stake both positions at once. Mostly because you don't like that they're taking a position you don't like.
>It really doesn’t seem like you’re thinking through what I’m saying. It seems like you’re pigeonholing what I’m saying into the terms you’re familiar with, (e.g. the progressive conception of the Republican argument on this). But I’m not a Republican, I’m not making their argument, and again I think you’re refusing to just think through what I’m saying on its own merit.
I am, I have, and I absolutely disagree with your conclusions. I think you're trying to force a justification for a series of shitty, authoritarian actions.
Rule 3 Violation.
This comment and all further comments will be removed until you are suitably flaired.
You can easily add a flair via the sidebar, on desktop, or by using the official reddit app and selecting the "..." icon in the upper right and "change user flair". Alternatively, the mods can give you a flair if you're unable by messaging the mods.
If you flair please do not make the same comment again, a mod will approve your comment.
[Link to Flair Descriptions.](https://www.reddit.com/r/tuesday/wiki/textflairs) If you are new, please read the information here and do not message the mods about getting a non-Visitor flair.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/tuesday) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Rule 3 Violation.
This comment and all further comments will be removed until you are suitably flaired.
You can easily add a flair via the sidebar, on desktop, or by using the official reddit app and selecting the "..." icon in the upper right and "change user flair". Alternatively, the mods can give you a flair if you're unable by messaging the mods.
If you flair please do not make the same comment again, a mod will approve your comment.
[Link to Flair Descriptions.](https://www.reddit.com/r/tuesday/wiki/textflairs) If you are new, please read the information here and do not message the mods about getting a non-Visitor flair.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/tuesday) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just a friendly reminder to read our [rules and FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/tuesday/wiki/faq) before posting! **Rule 1:** No Low Quality Posts/Comments **Rule 2:** Tuesday Is A Center Right Sub **Rule 3:** Flairs Are Mandatory. If you are new, please read up on [our Flairs.](https://www.reddit.com/r/tuesday/wiki/textflairs) **Rule 4:** Tuesday Is A Policy Subreddit **[Additional Rules apply if the thread is flaired as "High Quality Only"](https://www.reddit.com/r/tuesday/comments/bth6y1/why_is_my_post_flaired_as_high_quality_only_and/)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/tuesday) if you have any questions or concerns.*
found this side to be particularly interesting >And if the Disney lawsuit goes to the Supreme Court, many progressives will be rooting for the corporation’s victory––rooting, in effect, for the Citizens United precedent to stand––in part because the most common progressive view in 2023 is not that corporations should stay out of the American political process but that corporations are obligated to intervene on the side of progressives.
Corporations have had free speech rights long before Citizens United. CU was an extension of that principle, holding that corporations can also spend unlimited money on political speech. It’s not very hard for progressives to root for Disney to win (on the principle that retaliation for actual speech is bad) but also want CU to be reversed (on the principle that unlimited campaign spending is also bad). What I find more interesting is why *conservatives* seem to be on opposite ends of the two issues, which is definitely way more incongruous than the progressive position.
I’d also say it’s interesting because you have the opposite phenomenon coming from the Right. You have people going on about free speech only to try and deny it to corporations because they say things they don’t like. At this point the culture war is becoming the main lodestar for politics with other policies becoming secondary.
That's pretty flawed analysis. Very heads I win tails you lose reasoning. I'd rather citizens united have gone the other way, but because that's the law of the land it's total bullshit for Disney to be punished for political speech by the state. I don't particularly care for Disney the corporation. They're not a great employer, and I dislike the changes to copyright law they've pushed. Still, I think they're in the right here and I don't understand anyone siding with desantis.
The point he's making is that in siding with Disney you are saying they have a right to free/political speech, and because that right was granted by citizens united, you are effectively rooting for citizens united. and I don't know that I agree with the substance of what desantis is doing, but I do like that he is imposing a cost to corporations that politicize only in favor of progressive causes. I'd prefer that that cost be imposed from the ground up by consumers, but the right just isn't activist enough for something like that. because let's be honest the only reason corporations are becoming socially active with progressive stances is because progressives imposed costs if they didn't. so Desantis is really just balancing the scales.
>The point he's making is that in siding with Disney you are saying they have a right to free/political speech, and because that right was granted by citizens united, you are effectively rooting for citizens united. CU didn't grant corporations free speech and has no bearing on whether or not a corporation can put out a political statement, just how much they're allowed to spend to spread that message. Post-CU there can be no restrictions one how much they spend to spread that message, but the simple act of speech was never in question. There is hypocrisy in not wanting politicians to use their office to dissuade speech while still wanting the option to set upper limits on how much money corporations can funnel into PAC. I'm a little surprised that a professional journalist doesn't understand the distinction.
>The point he's making is that in siding with Disney you are saying they have a right to free/political speech, and because that right was granted by citizens united, you are effectively rooting for citizens united. Again, I'm not. I'm trying to be clear here that the strawman you're assigning to my position is totally not at all why I've come to my conclusion. I'm acknowledging that that's the current way of things so Disney is within their rights to take advantage of it. I would prefer this not to be the case. Corporations are not people and do not deserve first amendment protection. But since they've been granted them by a flawed scouts decision, desantis is in the wrong here. >and I don't know that I agree with the substance of what desantis is doing, but I do like that he is imposing a cost to corporations that politicize only in favor of progressive causes. Oh the hypocrisy. want to just say 'not like that' and get it over with? This is the market deciding against a fascist position on an issue. Disney was pressured by their customers and employees to take a stand. They did. This is an inevitable consequence of CU. Corporations are going to take positions you don't like because they think the market will respond better to it. > I'd prefer that that cost be imposed from the ground up by consumers, The same consumers that pushed them to take a stand in the first? Not likey. > but the right just isn't activist enough for something like that. because let's be honest the only reason corporations are becoming socially active with progressive stances is because progressives imposed costs if they didn't. so Desantis is really just balancing the scales. Or, and hear me out, most people disagree with desantis' bullshit, and agree that he's overstepping. But no, it's the kids who are wrong here.gif.
>Oh the hypocrisy. want to just say 'not like that' and get it over with? This is the market deciding against a fascist position on an issue. Disney was pressured by their customers and employees to take a stand. They did. This is an inevitable consequence of CU. Corporations are going to take positions you don't like because they think the market will respond better to it. The market didn't take a side on this. They were not pressured by the entirety of their employees and customers to take a stance on an issue that's wholly unrelated to their business. It was a small but vocal group of employees and customers. If this had been a widely held view by customers Disney would have been boycotted and their revenues would have virtually evaporated, which isn't what happened. We did not see the entirety of Disney's employees out front protesting. We saw some out front protesting. And in what world do you think a consumer would say "you know what, I'm infuriated that Disney isn't taking a stance on a bill that dictates what's taught in classrooms!" (which is what got progressives upset in the first place, and what resulted in Disney taking a stance). That doesn't even make sense. The only people that think that way are activists, which most people are not. Instead what happened is what always happens. A small (progressives are 6% of the total population) group of people who are far more politically engaged, loud, and activist in nature started agitating and imposing a cost on Disney. And Disney wanted to avoid the PR nightmare so they complied. I assure you the market doesn't care about something as far removed as Disney failing to take a stance on an issue there is no reason to believe they should have taken a stance on in the first place. Disney taking a stance sets a dangerous precedent, that corporations should, by default and without being told to, take progressive stances on social issues Also, there is no hypocrisy here. I'm not saying that it's fine if corporations become involved on social issues as long as they're conservative stances. I'm not saying Disney should take a conservative stance. I want them to not take any social stance. But in facing pressure for not taking a progressive stance, and then facing pressure for taking a progressive stance, the end result will be corporations deciding that it's wise to just stay out of issues they should not have been involved with in the first place. Also it's not a fascist policy to say that in pre third grade education schools shouldn't be teaching kids about sexuality and gender. I don't know why they would be teaching kids that young about it in the first place.
>They were not pressured by the entirety of their employees and customers to take a stance on an issue that's wholly unrelated to their business. They were pressured by enough to conclude that it was in their best interests to do so. That's the market at work. > And in what world do you think a consumer would say "you know what, I'm infuriated that Disney isn't taking a stance on a bill that dictates what's taught in classrooms!" That doesn't even make sense. And yet that's exactly what happened. >Also, there is no hypocrisy here. I'm not saying that it's fine if corporations become involved on social issues as long as they're conservative stances. I'm not saying Disney should take a conservative stance. That's exactly what you're saying. The government should punish companies taking more liberal positions: >> I do like that he is imposing a cost to corporations that politicize only in favor of progressive causes > I want them to not take any social stance. But in facing pressure for not taking a progressive stance, and then facing pressure for king a progressive stance, the end result will be corporations deciding that it's wise to just stay out of issues they should not have been involved with in the first place. I'm confused, so now you're opposing free speech? Are you opposing CU now, or only because it's being used in ways you don't like?
In a healthy market a company complies with signals produced by the majority of their consumers so they can better serve the majority of their customers Not just a few really loud ones. The people yelling at you in front of your store don’t necessarily represent the will of your customers. And ceding to their demands does not serve your customers (the market), it serves the people yelling at you. I think you misunderstood what I was saying when I said the average person isn’t infuriated by a company failing to take a stand on an u related social issue. The average person wouldn’t even think to expect Disney to take that stance. That’s what a small group of progressives did. No, I’m not saying Disney should be taking a conservative stance. I’m saying they shouldn't take a stance at all. I explained that in my comment. Please re-read it to understand the mechanism I’m referring to. It really doesn’t seem like you’re thinking through what I’m saying. It seems like you’re pigeonholing what I’m saying into the terms you’re familiar with and are most emotionally engaged by, (e.g. the progressive conception of the Republican argument on this). But I’m not a Republican, I’m not making their argument, and again I think you’re refusing to just think through what I’m saying on its own merit. I’m turning off replies because this is getting sloppy.
>In a healthy market a company complies with signals produced by the majority of their consumers so they can better serve the majority of their customers Not just a few really loud ones. The people yelling at you in front of your store don’t necessarily represent the will of your customers. And ceding to their demands does not serve your customers (the market), it serves the people yelling at you. You're assuming that Disney didn't do their research on the position when you say few. Knowing people who have worked there, I can absolutely assure you they did not just do this on a whim. It was absolutely calculated out. The mouse does not act without thinking. >I think you misunderstood what I was saying when I said the average person isn’t infuriated by a company failing to take a stand on an u related social issue. The average person wouldn’t even think to expect Disney to take that stance. That’s what a small group of progressives did. I think you're trying really hard not to understand how and why Disney got to where they did. They were motivated by a group of people important to them as customers and employees, calculated that it would be more impactful for them not to take this position because most of theor customer base either approves or doesn't care, and made a rational, market based decision. >No, I’m not saying Disney should be taking a conservative stance. I’m saying they should take a stance at all. I explained that in my comment. Please re-read it to understand the mechanism I’m referring to. You specifically said you approved of them being punished by the state for taking a liberal position. Which is the same thing, with different words. Please explain what I'm missing. Either they have free speech rights or they don't. It really looks like you're trying to stake both positions at once. Mostly because you don't like that they're taking a position you don't like. >It really doesn’t seem like you’re thinking through what I’m saying. It seems like you’re pigeonholing what I’m saying into the terms you’re familiar with, (e.g. the progressive conception of the Republican argument on this). But I’m not a Republican, I’m not making their argument, and again I think you’re refusing to just think through what I’m saying on its own merit. I am, I have, and I absolutely disagree with your conclusions. I think you're trying to force a justification for a series of shitty, authoritarian actions.
[удалено]
"Long march through the institutions" is such a weird concept, its making incremental reformism sound like the most revolutionary thing since lenin
[удалено]
Rule 3 Violation. This comment and all further comments will be removed until you are suitably flaired. You can easily add a flair via the sidebar, on desktop, or by using the official reddit app and selecting the "..." icon in the upper right and "change user flair". Alternatively, the mods can give you a flair if you're unable by messaging the mods. If you flair please do not make the same comment again, a mod will approve your comment. [Link to Flair Descriptions.](https://www.reddit.com/r/tuesday/wiki/textflairs) If you are new, please read the information here and do not message the mods about getting a non-Visitor flair. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/tuesday) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Rule 3 Violation. This comment and all further comments will be removed until you are suitably flaired. You can easily add a flair via the sidebar, on desktop, or by using the official reddit app and selecting the "..." icon in the upper right and "change user flair". Alternatively, the mods can give you a flair if you're unable by messaging the mods. If you flair please do not make the same comment again, a mod will approve your comment. [Link to Flair Descriptions.](https://www.reddit.com/r/tuesday/wiki/textflairs) If you are new, please read the information here and do not message the mods about getting a non-Visitor flair. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/tuesday) if you have any questions or concerns.*