It doesn't also mean the shareholders who voted for this are super progressive either, just that they don't want to take the public stance of being "anti-anti-discrimination".
Maybe they don’t like Dave Fintoli. I’m sorry I won’t defend him yes he made two great shows. But that’s not an excuse to defend him. If it was then a lot more people would defend jk Rowling
That's my expectation, really. But giving them kudos if they MAYBE do a good thing can potentially encourage them to actually do it. It's unlikely, but it's technically possible.
Given the reports of them cutting back on queer representation to appease the mango tyrant, I'll believe it when I see it in action. For now this is nice platitudes they're hoping the masses will swallow until they greenlight representation that actually stands for something in the face of bigotry.
It's so wild that a culture war sprung up around initiates meant to expand reach to consumers... like before DEI corporations were yknow. Stagnating because they were ignoring large demographics. But never underestimate the idiocy of fragile white men.
Did the think tank think theyd agree? Queer people are likely around like 10% of humanity. Disney is a business. Businesses exist to make money. More consumers/customers means more money. Of course they rejected it.
Comments
2 extras having a Lesbian Kiss in the *far background* of a shot in a Star Wars movie?
That's "Passive Progressive."
All stuff that can be edited out in other markets.
Deny it to those that hate it. Prop it up to those that want it.
And once Iger leaves, someone else will take an even bigger stand against the Red Guys…. I hope, anyway.
Until then, keep fighting back HARD.
And I bet you it's the same fucker who demanded Marvel Studios force that not a hero Israeli Sabra into Brave New World because Oct. 7.