Oh, honey… any Queen could tell you that Disney is Bad Actually. (Whether Disney is more a Jafar or an Ursula is up to you.)
Which is why it’s so entertaining watching an otherwise gormless toady like ‘Ol Pudding Fingers bite the hand that feeds him over literally nothing at all…
Pass the popcorn, will you? No one ever said our overlords at the feudal House of Mouse couldn’t put on a good show!
I think a thing that confuses me with this post (as with the last one), is that it feels like you’re responding to specific things you have read or heard, but it’s not entirely clear who you’re referring to.
e.g.:
> …left-leaning individuals – supporters of LGBTQ+ rights, often calling themselves “socialists,” – indiscriminately rallied behind Disney, viewing it as a champion fighting against DeSantis' anti-gay legislation.
> It’s easy to see why people who are generally inclined to support the rights of minority groups in what is ultimately an oppressive capitalist state might jump to such a conclusion.
Maybe it’s just that I don’t use Twitter (and I also barely follow political content on YouTube or Twitch), but, like… who? Who are these “left-leaning individuals… often calling themselves ‘socialists’” of whom you speak?
On the one hand, I can see that rhetorical impetus of not naming names (and therefore not being “drama content”). But on the other hand, the precise phrasing is somehow both broad and specific enough that it feels like casting shade anyone and everyone because of the Forer effect.
I feel like… from a rhetorical perspective, this ends up being kind of the worst of both options, which is to say the rhetoric might be more effective if you either did name names or omitted the shade-casting bit entirely.
Of course… when it comes to naming names, it’s not just the risk of “drama” but rather the risk of narrowing the scope of your critique to specific individuals (i.e. minor internet media personalities) who people might legitimately not care about, so I would tend suggest omitting the shade entirely, unless any given person you’re criticizing is a significant public figure with actual power in the real world.
Anyway, sorry for getting a bit in the weeds, here. It’s just this particular rhetorical strategy that I find frustrating (and, more to the point, distracting).
(And, to be clear, I guess, this is sort of the “aftertaste” for me, given that it’s been like half a day since I initially read and responded to this post, and this is something that stuck with me.)
As an aside, are you familiar with _Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom_?
Oh, honey… any Queen could tell you that Disney is Bad Actually. (Whether Disney is more a Jafar or an Ursula is up to you.)
Which is why it’s so entertaining watching an otherwise gormless toady like ‘Ol Pudding Fingers bite the hand that feeds him over literally nothing at all…
Pass the popcorn, will you? No one ever said our overlords at the feudal House of Mouse couldn’t put on a good show!
I think a thing that confuses me with this post (as with the last one), is that it feels like you’re responding to specific things you have read or heard, but it’s not entirely clear who you’re referring to.
e.g.:
> …left-leaning individuals – supporters of LGBTQ+ rights, often calling themselves “socialists,” – indiscriminately rallied behind Disney, viewing it as a champion fighting against DeSantis' anti-gay legislation.
> It’s easy to see why people who are generally inclined to support the rights of minority groups in what is ultimately an oppressive capitalist state might jump to such a conclusion.
Maybe it’s just that I don’t use Twitter (and I also barely follow political content on YouTube or Twitch), but, like… who? Who are these “left-leaning individuals… often calling themselves ‘socialists’” of whom you speak?
On the one hand, I can see that rhetorical impetus of not naming names (and therefore not being “drama content”). But on the other hand, the precise phrasing is somehow both broad and specific enough that it feels like casting shade anyone and everyone because of the Forer effect.
I feel like… from a rhetorical perspective, this ends up being kind of the worst of both options, which is to say the rhetoric might be more effective if you either did name names or omitted the shade-casting bit entirely.
Of course… when it comes to naming names, it’s not just the risk of “drama” but rather the risk of narrowing the scope of your critique to specific individuals (i.e. minor internet media personalities) who people might legitimately not care about, so I would tend suggest omitting the shade entirely, unless any given person you’re criticizing is a significant public figure with actual power in the real world.
Anyway, sorry for getting a bit in the weeds, here. It’s just this particular rhetorical strategy that I find frustrating (and, more to the point, distracting).
(And, to be clear, I guess, this is sort of the “aftertaste” for me, given that it’s been like half a day since I initially read and responded to this post, and this is something that stuck with me.)