Disney caught pushing "gender theory," more

[Andrew NDB]

No longer a conspiracy theory... Disney is openly proclaiming it. And apparently because a Disney producer has a transgender child and a pansexual child (yeesh! also, what are the odds?) 50% of characters in Disney projects for kids either need to be LGBTQ or "people of color."

https://nypost.com/2022/03/30/disney...nimated-shows/

https://www.advocate.com/arts-entert...d-internal-vid

https://nypost.com/2022/03/30/disney...heory-to-kids/

[Sumac]

What the **** is "pansexual"?
Thee are only three sexualities - Hetero, Bi and Homo.

Pansexual is such a nonsense ********. It refers to attraction to "gender identity", which has nothing to with sexuality.

As in attraction to stereotypes you associate with a biological sex, has nothing to do with a biological sex itself. It is basically a regular attraction to personal qualities of the person, reframed to be part of LGB+ word salad trash, because, nowadays just being attracted to another person, without any connection to LGB garbage ideology is "old fashioned" and doesn't bring attention.

It connected to sexualities as much as "Asexuality" which technically refers to lack of libido, which is not a sexuality, but a dysfunction.

And what the **** is a "pansexual child"!?
I smell a pedo abusive parent.

[FredWolfLeonardo]

Walt himself would've reacted with disgust.

Disney sucks now, both in their entertainment and their views. I hope Disney loses money from this, I can`t see this flying somewhere like China which crushes LGB-everything, and Disney is dependent on China for alot of their revenue.

[mrmaczaps]

Disney has always been pro-pedo, they're just way more open about it now.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Sumac

And what the **** is a "pansexual child"!?
I smell a pedo abusive parent.

Yep. Which is exactly why the bill in Florida got passed, also.

SOME people think it's super-important to start socially programming kids as young as 3 or 4 years old, and MOST other people think that's insane.

Far-left "Embrace EVERYTHING Or You're A Bigot" narratives have been running rampant for about 5 years, but it was inevitable that there'd start to be some pushback. It's growing, too. Parents who want their kids to be more than a living, breathing Virtue Signaling Trophy are furious about this kinda sh*t. INCLUDING gay parents who happen to think this kind of thing is a bridge too far.

Right now, according to the media, being straight is about the most "boring and uncool" thing there is to be. Everyone "cool" and "popular" is LGBTQ+; kids want to be "cool", ergo, when they're inundated with this stuff constantly, including in their cartoons, its only natural that for at least some of them it won't be taken by their too-young-to-understand minds as simply "learning acceptance". What those kids at that young age will take from these messages is, "LGBTQ+ is what you WANT to be, because it's more interesting and fun and 'cool' than being straight."

And that on some level IS "indoctrination" and "brainwashing". Like it's literally the textbook definition of "indoctrination", just for one. I mean, we banned subliminal marketing and advertising for a reason; this is really only one step removed from that. And with children, no less.

Is it really SO hard to believe that a person can be totally fine with gay people but still think it's f*cking just plain wrong to sit kids down at age 4 and start showing them cartoons with a bunch of homoerotic content? I know it wouldn't likely be anything graphic or explicit, but still. It just feels really offsides, to me.

[Sumac]

Agreed.

Though I am really interested in mechanics, how society went from styles and fashions being "hip and cool" subcultures to the sexual orientation becoming "hip and cool" subculture.

Its like people were not satisfied with dressing like idiots, they wanted more reasons to stand out from the crowd.

Guess, Capitalist society did brought plentiful and good life, if even dressing differently was not shunned anymore and everyone could express themselves how they wanted, huh?

[Andrew NDB]

The masses never seem to be happy unless there's something new to push against. Basically.

Also, this may be a "hot take" but we really needed a Ukraine type of situation/wake up call like 4 years ago. Ideally minus the death and destruction, of course. But a hard reminder that the entire world and everyone in it doesn't want exactly what the radical left dreams about on the daily. Because memories always seem short, sadly.

[Sumac]

I believe, this whole thing is lack of coherent ideology, which would've united society on the West: Cold War was over, "War on Terror" didn't caught on, Cold War with China didn't caught on and so regular Western citizen had started to grow insane and restless.

Power vacuum should be filled by something and in this case, West had manufactured this crazy quasi-religion about LGB and Racists and oppression to fill the void, left by religions and ideologies of old.

Covid made situation even worse, and this conflict...well, it might unite people, but too many of the aforementioned are in power, so who knows how it will go in the West. My hope, that it would cleanse itself from the worst trash, like all those transfurries and other psychopaths in power and West will return to stable and prosperous path of development, at least until it will lose another ideology.

In this case survival of Russia as unifying factor is not only desirable, but crucial for restoration of the West, since it might work as a Scarecrow. But it should be remembered that Western leaders are no longer "leaders" in a traditional sense, but mere run-of-the-middle bureaucrats: spineless, uncharismatic and shallow.

So how it will turn out is remain to be seen. I have no longer Optimism of the past - civilization will survive anyway, but West as we know it nowadays, which gave rise to the most safe and prosperous societies ever known to humanity, might not.

[FredWolfLeonardo]

Originally Posted by Sumac

So how it will turn out is remain to be seen. I have no longer Optimism of the past - civilization will survive anyway, but West as we know it nowadays, which gave rise to the most safe and prosperous societies ever known to humanity, might not.

I look forward to its collapse, so that it will be replaced by a superior civilization which is based on strict order and discipline, not freedom and liberty.

Originally Posted by Sumac

Covid made situation even worse, and this conflict...well, it might unite people, but too many of the aforementioned are in power, so who knows how it will go in the West. My hope, that it would cleanse itself from the worst trash, like all those transfurries and other psychopaths in power and West will return to stable and prosperous path of development, at least until it will lose another ideology.

The worst trash in question have been able to develop further and further because the Western ideology of freedom and liberty has allowed them to. This is why I'm not in favour of said ideas and I think that they are terrible guiding principles to run society with.

When the West was much more stable in the past (although still not perfect in my opinion), they rightfully imposed limits on freedom so that it wouldn't cause breakdown in society. Things like these furries were not allowed to exist because the consequences were severe, it was as simple as that.

It was only when people started pointing out that the surpression of undesirable elements ran contrary to freedom, that people chose to ally themselves with a contradictory ideology over rigid and established principles which have ensured humanity's survival over centuries (traditional families, racial purity, collectivism, traditional religion etc.)

[Galactus]

Another LGBTQ scare thread and another post by me to try and restore some sense.

It's certainly true that one Disney exec wants to include more LGBTQ content in Disney productions. She is talking about it openly like it's a completely normal thing because it's a completely normal thing.

Also Disney should totally be doing this. Not just for any moral reasons but commercially it's what works out for them in the long run. Before you all come at me consider this; Have you ever noticed for that all the heat Disney gets for it's older movies and shorts having racist stereotypes they are significantly less racist than content put out at the same time by the likes of Warner Bros or Fleischer? Even their war propaganda shorts are significantly less offensive than other studio's efforts. I doubt that it was because people working for Disney were less racist than any other studio it was because there was at least one or two people in the room that were cognisant that certain attitudes towards race and nationality would change over time so maybe dial down things that even back then was iffy territory because decades on it might be considered completely offensive. Walt Disney always thought most of what he was doing was legit art and wanted it to still be watched decades later. The fact that there were people in his company that screened out some of the worst racial stereotypes in why a lot of them still can.

Over the years Disney as a company has cottoned on that the children will generally be more progressive than their parents so there's been a movement within the company to try and stay ahead of that. A good example of this is The Princess and the Frog which flopped at the time but several years on developed a cult following and dolls of Tiana are among the highest selling because little Black girls actually like the idea there's a princess that looks like them.

Taking all that into account Disney can't afford not to have any LGBTQ representation. That being said being Disney it very likely be highly santised. It will be like a character with two dads or a best male friend that's kinda effeminate and it it will be treated as completely normal which it is. Nothing that a young person wouldn't see by going outside and living their life in 2022. The only secret agenda here is the corporation will be inclusive if it makes them money and hopefully there is some sincerely good intentions from the creative staff.

You're not going to stop people (particularly young people) advocating for progressive change by giving them a common cause like a war. Iraq and Afghanistan didn't stop people in the Western world pursuing Social Justice causes and it famously didn't stop it during Vietnam. Having international problems has never prevented people wanting to solve domestic ones.

BTW a pansexual is someone who is attracted to all genders. The difference between them and bisexual people is that bisexuals often have a preference of one sex over the other and often don't consider trans people. Pansexuals generally don't have a preference at all and are open to all consenting adults. As I understand it for pansexuals it's more about the personality of the person than the physicality. Considering that no one on this thread knew that don't you feel a bit silly ranting about it. You could have at least looked it up before yelling pedophile.

[FredWolfLeonardo]

Originally Posted by Galactus

You're not going to stop people (particularly young people) advocating for progressive change by giving them a common cause like a war. Iraq and Afghanistan didn't stop people in the Western world pursuing Social Justice causes and it famously didn't stop it during Vietnam. Having international problems has never prevented people wanting to solve domestic ones.

Are you addressing me or Sumac (or someone else entirely) with your post? Just want to clarify as me and him have quite different views on just about everything.

I also completely oppose the Western wars on Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam.

[Galactus]

Originally Posted by FredWolfLeonardo

Are you addressing me or Sumac (or someone else entirely) with your post? Just want to clarify as me and him have quite different views on just about everything.

I also completely oppose the Western wars on Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam.

It was an open statement. Most of the time on these threads I end debating several people at a time which is tiring so sometimes I figure making a general response is the better way to go. A few people on here seem to think that the lack of a common external threat is what causes young people to take up progressive causes so I thought I'd say to anyone who thinks that way it's provably wrong.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by FredWolfLeonardo

I look forward to its collapse, so that it will be replaced by a superior civilization which is based on strict order and discipline, not freedom and liberty.

A childish dream.

It has been tried over and over again and every single time it had failed.

Also, people craving authoritarian dictatorship - are scared little children incapable of making decisions of their own and taking responsibility for those decisions.

Besides, world of discipline would be grey, stupid and creatively bankrupt. It will degenerate over time in just another dying civilization, which will eventually collapse under its own weight.

You'd knew it, if you studied history.

Freedom is a necessary component of progress.

Slaves won't move world forward, because, they have no genuine interest in serving their cruel masters. Likewise, their masters are not interested in moving world forward, because, they are completely OK with a "status quo".

Thus, freedom is necessary for a world to prosper and mover forward and any desire for an authoritarian world comes only from a place of infantile complexes and fear.

Are you a coward, who can't make decisions of his own?
Are you a coward who can't take responsibility for those decisions?
And if, yes, do you think everyone as inept and scared as you are?

Originally Posted by FredWolfLeonardo

The worst trash in question have been able to develop further and further because the Western ideology of freedom and liberty has allowed them to. This is why I'm not in favour of said ideas and I think that they are terrible guiding principles to run society with.

"Worst trash" is a by-product of freedom.
In a free society you can't have good things without bad ones, because, get this, this is what makes it free: a freedom for people to make choices of their own, good and bad.

In authoritarian society you won't have neither good nor bad things, because, not only any creativity would be outlawed, but, also it will solely depend on a current view of people in power, which is ripe to abuse and hypocrisy. And, no, no control will ever help to weed it out. This flaw is built-in in any totalitarian / authoritarian system.

Originally Posted by FredWolfLeonardo

When the West was much more stable in the past (although still not perfect in my opinion), they rightfully imposed limits on freedom so that it wouldn't cause breakdown in society. Things like these furries were not allowed to exist because the consequences were severe, it was as simple as that.

You need educate yourself more.
Everything, one considers deviant today have existed in your "old West society". It was not promoted, yes, but it existed and people in power often ignored it, especially when practitioners of those deviant activities were themselves people in power.

Originally Posted by FredWolfLeonardo

It was only when people started pointing out that the surpression of undesirable elements ran contrary to freedom, that people chose to ally themselves with a contradictory ideology over rigid and established principles which have ensured humanity's survival over centuries (traditional families, racial purity, collectivism, traditional religion etc.)

Spare me this garbage, racist.

You have no ****ing idea of what you are talking about. Like NO IDEA at all.

Like, none of listed "values" were practiced throughout centuries in such manner, but most of them didn't even existed for the most part of the human history.

For the most history there was no concept of racial purity, because, subjects of the state viewed themselves as subjects of a state or a ruler, not on basis of their skin color, but on basis of their allegiance.

"Collectivism" was not really a thing, either. Most people were forced to work for their masters, for no payment or benefits. And ruling classes consisted from perpetually squabbling factions. Once again you apply modern definition to something that was not a thing for most of the history.

And traditional religion...it is just hilarious display of a ****ing ignorance!! What is a traditional religion? Christianity? Which one? What about Islam or Buddhism? What about multicultural society from the Ancient world and Middle ages?

I am sad to say, but you no better than a SJW.
You are just as ignorant and not particularly intelligent as them.

Two different sides of the same coin, called "totalitarian control".
And both are highly disgusting and ugly. To Mariana trench with both of those.

[FredWolfLeonardo]

Originally Posted by Sumac

I am sad to say, but you no better than a SJW.
You are just as ignorant and not particularly intelligent as them.

I don't agree with the SJW ideology, but I can atleast respect their embrace of totalitarianism and authoritarianism, which is why they are winning in the West. While many conservatives whine about liberals shutting them down and taking control of big companies, those very liberals are rapidly increasing their power and controlling the dominant narrative.

I wish the cause being advanced was different, but might always makes right.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by FredWolfLeonardo

I don't agree with the SJW ideology, but I can atleast respect their embrace of totalitarianism and authoritarianism, which is why they are winning in the West. While many conservatives whine about liberals shutting them down and taking control of big companies, those very liberals are rapidly increasing their power and controlling the dominant narrative.

I wish the cause being advanced was different, but might always makes right.

Respecting idiotic and toxic movements embracing totalitarian style, which in the future will be the cause of their downfall, is an amazing display of an ignorance. Like a double display of ignorance.

If "might was always right" you'd still be living in a cave and fire would have been the greatest achievement you've ever seen in your life.

Think about it, why it is not the case and maybe you'll figure out, why "might makes right" is a retarded way of thinking.

Originally Posted by Galactus

It's certainly true that one Disney exec wants to include more LGBTQ content in Disney productions. She is talking about it openly like it's a completely normal thing because it's a completely normal thing.

Cannibal also talks about eating people as it is a normal thing.
it doesn't make it so.

Originally Posted by Galactus

Also Disney should totally be doing this.

A cold shower for you: there is a difference between understanding that racist stereotypes are bad (or will be viewed as bad in the future) and praising mental illness and pandering to mentally ill people and attention whores.

Originally Posted by Galactus

Over the years Disney as a company has cottoned on that the children will generally be more progressive than their parents so there's been a movement within the company to try and stay ahead of that. A good example of this is The Princess and the Frog which flopped at the time but several years on developed a cult following and dolls of Tiana are among the highest selling because little Black girls actually like the idea there's a princess that looks like them.

What it has to do with made up genders? Or trans?

Originally Posted by Galactus

Taking all that into account Disney can't afford not to have any LGBTQ representation. That being said being Disney it very likely be highly santised. It will be like a character with two dads or a best male friend that's kinda effeminate and it it will be treated as completely normal which it is. Nothing that a young person wouldn't see by going outside and living their life in 2022. The only secret agenda here is the corporation will be inclusive if it makes them money and hopefully there is some sincerely good intentions from the creative staff.

There is a difference between young people and kids.
Don't dilute that line or I might get suspicious about your motives.

Originally Posted by Galactus

You're not going to stop people (particularly young people) advocating for progressive change by giving them a common cause like a war. Iraq and Afghanistan didn't stop people in the Western world pursuing Social Justice causes and it famously didn't stop it during Vietnam. Having international problems has never prevented people wanting to solve domestic ones.

You have a very lousy understanding of history, which is a common problem for zealots on both Left and Right.
Of course, if you understood history in a proper manner, you won't be a zealot supporting most ludicrous ideas, but here we are.

There is a significant difference, between social movements of the past and thing manufactured by zoomers and their corporate overlords today. Social movements of the past have developed organically, as a response to various external and internal events.

Movements observed nowadays are shallow and artificial, because, if you check their stated goals, they already have achieved most of them. And, because, their "outrage" and definitions and very hypocritical and change almost daily, on the basis of what is more popular today, which doesn't happens with "organic ideologies". But it is a sure sign of a "totalitarian ideology", where being part of the mainstream beliefs, inside a party is more important than ideological consistency and coherence.

To put it simply, modern "movements" are not response for any urgent humanitarian crisis inside societies, but manufactured outrages and "struggles" by the circles and people interested in obtaining / preserving their clout and power by manipulating society.

Like a person above, you are making a mistake, by applying modern definitions and interpretations to ideas that existed before your time. Which is a good sign of you being on the wrong side of history, mate.

Originally Posted by Galactus

BTW a pansexual is someone who is attracted to all genders.

Gender is a social construct, i.e. set of stereotypes. Making it a separate and special sexuality is retarded, because: a) it has nothing to do with sexuality and b) because, 99,9% of people attracted to various stereotypes, which mean "pansexual" can be applied to 99,9% of humanity, which makes it meaningless.

Originally Posted by Galactus

The difference between them and bisexual people is that bisexuals often have a preference of one sex over the other and often don't consider trans people. Pansexuals generally don't have a preference at all and are open to all consenting adults. As I understand it for pansexuals it's more about the personality of the person than the physicality.

So what you are saying "pansexuals" are no different in any way than normal people and are just attention whores, who label themselves with a made up sexuality, just to get asspats and praise.
Thanks for confirming my point.

Originally Posted by Galactus

Considering that no one on this thread knew that don't you feel a bit silly ranting about it. You could have at least looked it up before yelling pedophile.

Your statement rings hollow, my learned friend, considering that above you've just stated that, you, yourself, not even sure, what "pansexual" means. So thanks for educating us about your ignorance. Again.

[Andrew NDB]

I thought the whole separating of bisexual from pansexual is because a pansexual is "Attracted to everything"? As in, even children and animals?

[Coola Yagami]

I remember the one time they tried to label you just wanting to **** your partner and only your partner some new sexuality. Everyone with common sense was like 'that's not s new sexuality, that's being faithful and not being a whore'.

[ChosenOne]

Originally Posted by Galactus

(...) restore some sense. (...)

Originally Posted by Galactus

(...) it's a completely normal thing. (...)

Make up your mind.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Coola Yagami

I remember the one time they tried to label you just wanting to **** your partner and only your partner some new sexuality. Everyone with common sense was like 'that's not s new sexuality, that's being faithful and not being a whore'.

Well, being a whore nowadays is considered to be viable carrier path for women and a proud feminist activity (mostly by feminist men and trans psychos), so its just a question of time when it will be proclaimed as a new special sexuality. If it didn't happen already.

Originally Posted by ChosenOne

Make up your mind.

It will BSOD him, if he tries, since admitting his ideology can be wrong is tantamount of a treachery and breaks their zombified minds.