There must be some other reasons. Disney and Netflix are doing fine while pushing propaganda.

Really?

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/queen_cleopatra/s01

Yes, Netflix is doing financially very good, considering the most of it's movies are shitty.

You do understand that riling up right-wing nutjobs is a deliberate marketing strategy?

Imagine you're a production company working on a low-budget docudrama for Netflix where you know it will be displayed as just one more UI tile among an endless tsunami of similar low-budget dramas from around the world. Which marketing approach do you think would work better:

1) Make a historically accurate show with the little money you have, release it, and watch it sink to oblivion with a slightly below average rating;

2) Add a provocative bait that you know the most bored unemployed crowd on Twitter won't be able to resist; watch everybody talk about your show; enjoy your 11% rating because it came with massive online notoriety and a fat Netflix royalty wire for a few months.

There are not enough right-wing nutjobs. It is strategy of insulting thinking humans.

There obviously are enough of them because we've heard of this Cleopatra docudrama when normally this kind of production would have vanished without a trace.

There are just as many nut jobs on the left as there are on the right.

Of course. Provoking liberals for visibility is a time-honored strategy in right-wing media.

ok I'll bite, because I must be missing the bus in the last 10 years. Please do tell what propagandas, as in topics, or ideas, Netflix and Disney are pushing and so was Vice? Thanks.

Hehe, are you sure, you want to be filled in on the latest dystopian woke terrorism?

It is the usual. They propagate homosexuality, gender identity, feminism. All the bad stuff. Probably also propagation of witchcraft, if you ask more religious opponents.

(Seriously, considering Disney as progressive, is very weird in my opinion. And the person you replied to, did not actually think Disney is doing Propaganda, it was a mocking statement to the initial post)

I see. So remakes with women, gay people having roles in TV etc. I guess if you're a religious zealot that would hurt. I miss the days where you had to be intelligent to be on the internet. Sorry, but social media royally fucked up humanity into a polarised war of opinions.

" Sorry, but social media royally fucked up humanity into a polarised war of opinions."

I rather think it made those polarised opinions more visible. The divide existed before, extremists on all sides just had less broad interaction. Now they read each other on the internet and can directly jump on each others throat. And with less restraint, than in real life, as all semi anonymous.

That's very true. We've given every village idiot a platform to shout out loud world wide.

Yeah yeah, girls get it done is of course the most believable trope ever.

I'm sorry but they do get it done, just look at your mother. It's silly to silo roles based on sex. Embrace the differences, you'll live a much happier life, rather than being sold the idea of segregation based on anything. Segregation sells clicks, it sells views, it sells ideas.

As for entertainment, it's entertainment. If you're referring to women remakes of films, it's not my cup of tea either, it doesn't mean that it's bad entertainment and the other half of the planet can enjoy it.

Mentioning my mother in this context is as counter-productive as possible. In fact, if it were not for my mother, I would give women a bit more slack.

I'm sorry to hear that. Apologies.

Whatever your mother did or didn't do to you, she gave birth to you. That is already something big.

Would you rather her have not done this for you?

Destroying is easy, creating is hard.

(and raising a child in this world is as well)

"if it were not for my mother, I would give women a bit more slack."

And whatever happened, you are saying clearly, that because of one women, you see all women less. Maybe that's not fair?

That is part of the problem. That some people believe that getting laid and following through with the consequences is actually an acomplishment. It is not, it is how nature works. Once that is done, the work actually starts, and it starts to become relevant what sort of human you are. How much you know, frankly, how intelligent you are.

Besides, since you seem to love to trigger me with just the "right" sentences:

   Would you rather her have not done this for you?

Yes, now that you ask, I would have prefered if she didn't do that. Why that is is a bit too complicated to pack into a single reply. Just dont assume that your way of seeing things works for others.

Do you think, giving birth is easier, than just taking a pill?

For men it is easy to "make babies". For women it isn't. They usually sacrifice at least a year for it. You aren't really productive, if your brain is a hormon slurry and everything hurts. And most women do get lasting injuries from the birth, taking years to recover. (have you ever sacrifized a year for someone else?)

So it seems, she tried at least. And then maybe discovered that she does not have anything more for you. Or not much.

That is shitty and not fair. No doubt and sorry to hear that.

But that is also how nature works. There is no fairness baked in anywhere. In the end life is a gift.

You can take it, or don't.

But if you continiue to choose life, you maybe would be better off, if one day you can let go of your anger over your childhood trauma of abandonment.

Sometimes things can work out with the old family. Sometimes not, but the world is full of people looking for a real family.

But a family can only work, if the partners respect and trust each other. And sorry if I am crossing a line again (I was aware with my question before, what your answer likely would be), but I think you would have a major struggle with that, with the fear of being abandoned again, this time by your partner. Which can easily lead to jealousy, pressure, all the usual stuff, breaking up and a new generation of half or full abandoned children.

And you might have sworn to yourself, that you would never abandon your children - but when you are done, you are done. I never thought I could get there, but I was close to that point with my children. Kids and everything around it, is undescribable intense, unless everything was set up perfectly before. And I am not aware of many such cases.

Your mother was a human. Faulty, with limited energy, understanding and naivity. Likely experienced her childhood traumatas.

She tried and failed - partly. Because you are alive and can choose now, what you do in this imperfect world of ours.

I am not sure if I understand you right, but are you saying girls are in general less competent?

Nope. I am against the woke trope that "everything is better done by a women". Absoulte statements like this and the one you tried to imply are always wrong.

That's why I asked. (even though your other reply to keyle, implys otherwise)

And actually, I have not really seen that trope very much: "everything is better done by a women"

It surely exists somewhere, but can you give examples for this with any major production?

You missed the bus.

Thanks for confirming! I think it's okay to settle down and watch the same landscape after a while.

Probably very different audiences to Vice. Most people I know who watch a lot of Netflix are the same that used to watch cable TV all day. And I'm not sure who exactly are Disney's target audience these days, but I don't think it's mature adults.

Blackrock

Disney's share price has halved from its two year high.

Or, more realitically,

Disney's share price has returned to it's decade long steady state after the boom time of lockdown subscriptions has passed.

Positive take. Yet, I doubt anyone who bought shares over the last two years shares your enthusiasm.

I wrote a good chunk of the back end of what is now a widely referenced Standard & Poor Global Mineral Intelligence GIS database that draws together and cross references all global mineral leases and company data publicly filed in land offices and stock exchanges across the planet (and a few more odds and sods that take a bit more effort to unearth).

I don't do "enthusiam" .. just the bald facts.

Disney, like many other media and streaming companies in several countries, saw a COVID period boom in stock prices as more people watched media and more investors bet on streaming.

That peaked and passed, falling back to pre COVID levels in the majority of cases.

I dare say some day trading investors fumed and cursed culture wars attributing some facet of "woke" to what was a wide spread an thoroughly predictable occurrence echoed across multiple countries.

In the same time period Disney halved, the major indexes have retained value or increased. It's difficult to benchmark as competitors embraced the same ideologies. All we can say for sure is that against the market, they performed badly.

Disney is very much not doing fine. They just replaced their CEO for a reason and they've had a long string of flops, as well as having trashed the Star Wars franchise.

It amazes me that any major organisation believes pitching themselves at a minority group of deniers of the commonly-held views of everyone else - that most people therefore find abrasive and alienating - makes good business sense.

So you think the minorities don't deserve news outlets and opinion platforms? I've been through that already and it was behind the iron curtain, welcome back to the old world - I definitely didn't expect it to be called "good".

No. Minorities do not deserve carte blanche control of the output of mass communication. That's the most basic enabler of authoritarian dictatorship. Under democratic capitalism, power must cater to the majority, or lose it/go broke.

It's not a perfect system, and remains susceptible to corruption from extremism, but it's historically superior to anything else that's been tried. Presumably this is a reality you've since enjoyed.

Key - for minorities as much as anyone else - is ensuring principles of free speech are upheld. The "woke" crowd have generally promoted censorship ("cancelling"), and therefore are incompatible with protecting their own rights.

As we're seeing here, with exactly this.

Sorry for nitpicking, but you said "The 'woke' crowd have generally promoted censorship ('cancelling')" - but from what I can tell it's not the woke crowd banning books from schools and libraries, banning certain words from education, banning health measures, and I could go on. You talk about wokes promoting things, yet ignore the others actually _implementing_ bans as we speak? Is this gaslighting or what...

To use an analogy: there's a world of difference between scams, spam, opt-in marketing, and an actual, legitimate, invited, email message.

Those not wishing to face the difficult and nuanced reality of these debates equate these in appeals to emotions rather than citing specificity. Not interested in any discussion that employs that technique.

What books? Why? What "health" measures? Why? What were the arguments for and against? Side-stepping these questions is side-stepping the process correct outcomes depend on.

Why would someone want to do that?

On the surface, you'd appear correct, but if you look at the nuance, (a key aspect of critical thinking) you'd be wholly mistaken. The books being banned are graphic in nature and are not age appropriate, and books that are graphic have always been controlled for students. You can still buy them, read them in public libraries, but they have no place in student libraries because kids are MINORS.

A 6th grader should NOT, under any circumstances, be taught how to give a blow job by a 400lb man in a dress. Sexual content has always been restricted, banned, and subject to more scrutiny and control by school boards and curriculum.

"banning certain words from education"

The word CUNT is banned in schools. Certain words are not age appropriate for school.

Walking around with a dildo strapped to your head is also banned in schools. Some things are not appropriate for students.

"banning health measures"

Such as what? Abortion? You can still get an abortion. Or are you talking about cutting off a young girls breasts ...or lopping off a 10 year old's penis because he thinks he is a girl?

I mean, yay, stunning... brave... until the kid reaching 25 and realizes, gee ...I wish I had my breasts/penis ...but there's no going back after such body mutilation.

The latter is not a "health measure" by any means, and Hippocrates would dress you down in ancient Greek if you tried to make the argument to him.

Books depicting blow jobs, anal sex, and other sexual content has always been banned from young eyes. It is already against the law to sexualize children, show them pornographic content, and groom them UNLESS you're a "woke" school district. If the latter, then such woke content seemingly takes precedence over math, reading, and science.

Students in Loudon County can tell you their pronouns, but only half of students have grade-level math proficiency. That is abject failure.

Kids should not be groomed or influenced into a lifestyle, they should not be indoctrinated to think one way or the other. They should be taught the fundamentals, how to critically think, and how to be successful. Lifestyle is a personal choice and damn those who believe it is within their purview to groom kids.

> A 6th grader should NOT, under any circumstances, be taught how to give a blow job by a 400lb man in a dress.

Can you show one instance of this actually happening? I'm not aware of any and what does get banned seems to be a pretty far cry from that sort of thing. Honestly, this registers as more of a pretext than a legitimate concern.

What do you think they are reading at Drag Queen Grooming Hour?

You have to choose something that isn't imaginary for it to count, I think.

Here's one of the banned books (NSFW warning):

https://alphanews.org/hastings-kids-have-access-to-gender-qu...

Do you have any examples of this book actually being read to children? Otherwise it's still speculation that kids are being taught "how to give blowjobs". I have no doubt that sexually explicit books on lgbt issues exist, but the claim is that they are being targeted at children.

Do you honestly think a book with a blowjob in it would have been banned if it weren't?

Regardless, exactly which "books" presenters with names such as "Eric Big Clit", "Flowjob" and "rainbow dildo butt monkey" choose to present to children - as young as four - strikes me as somewhat beside the point:

https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/05/10/parents-are-right-t...

This website, along with your last one, caters to a fairly right perspective and isn't going to be trustworthy either.

See reply to sibling.

Um. Yes? Considering books like this https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/27/us/tennessee-school-board-rem... have also been banned, I'm not super confident in the some people's ability to distinguish between genuine overstepping of boundaries and stuff they just don't agree with.

The county boards statement on that removal seemed pretty reasonable to me:

The McMinn County Board of Education voted to remove the graphic novel Maus from McMinn County Schools because of its unnecessary use of profanity and nudity and its depiction of violence and suicide. Taken as a whole, the Board felt this work was simply too adult-oriented for use in our schools.

We do not diminish the value of Maus as an impactful and meaningful piece of literature, nor do we dispute the importance of teaching our children the historical and moral lessons and realities of the Holocaust. To the contrary, we have asked our administrators to find other works that accomplish the same educational goals in a more age-appropriate fashion. The atrocities of the Holocaust were shameful beyond description, and we all have an obligation to ensure that younger generations learn of its horrors to ensure that such an event is never repeated.

Though I would very much agree that censorship of any kind is a delicate matter and can easily become heavy-handed in exactly the way you describe.

I actually don't know anything about that source. It came up in a search and appeared to summarise and provide source-links to cases I'd previously seen. It wasn't as sensationalist as others so seemed worth including.

Glad you appreciated it. I wasn't able to find something that specifically summarised what I've seen from the US, but it is out there and was as concerning. Maybe it's a bit "boy who cried wolf" with the right in the US on this.

That is, while there's often puritanical hyperbole that's easier for left to switch off to, the right appear to have a valid point most people either side would agree to here, but it's maybe not represented well in mainstream left media.

That news source is one with questionable facts that caters to a far-right audience. This might as well be imaginary.

Do you have something that actually happened, that can be verified through more than one source, and doesn't involve giving such a website traffic?

There's literally videos of these events, look them up.

I don't know anything about that site other than it was pretty well-written and had sources and names and times and places. You're welcome.

I'm pretty sure that line gets repeated because it rhymes, Your brain thinks it is catchy.

It certainly isn't true in general.

It appears “woke” companies are doing quite well.

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/woke-c...

> Get woke, go broke.

A quarter of all US newspapers closed since 2005, and they've been shutting down at a pace of 2 newspapers per week.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/29/business/media/local-news...

The same source extrapolates that a third of all US newspapers is set to close by 2025.

Do you honestly believe that this bankruptcy wave only affects "woke" newspapers?

Also, your "Get woke, go broke" comment is based on the idea that if a newspaper you follow starts reporting things you don't like or personally agree them protest is a healthy or desirable course of action, as if depriving funds from a business will eliminate things you don't like or understand. I'm not sure this is a healthy take, and is reminiscente of extremism.

"Voting with your wallet" isn't particularily unheard of. I dont understand why you seem to make a difference here just because the topic is leaning a little towards politics.

Is there a point after which an organisation goes woke, but doesn't go broke, that we can say "they probably didn't go broke because they went woke"? Because they were "woke" for quite a long time.

Quite useful "How to urinate in Public"-video by lovely and talented Gavin McInnes has been totally cancelled from internets.

It was transphobic, of course, by assuming certain anatomic appendices are common among masculines.