“Women are the best judges of anything we turn out. Their taste is very important. They are the theatergoers; they are the ones who drag the men in. If the women like it, to heck with the men.”

— Walt Disney

Walt Disney realized when he made movies for children, by extension, he was making movies for wives and mothers. Even back then, his movies were watered down and cutified versions of european fairytales, said cutification was very appealing to women. Still. that wasn't that much of a problem since the public saw them as another version of those fairytales and many parents used to read to their kids.

Slowly but surely, Disney became a household name, mothers mistook the high production values from the movies as a sign of them being educational material. In a couple of decades you had a generation of mothers nostalgic for Disney, gleefuly introducing their kids to Disney's world. His movies eclipsed the original fairytales thanks to the accesibility of VHS and DVDs

During the 80s you at least could argue his movies were family focused and had traditional values, this changed with the 90s Disney renaissance, you had girls like Jasmine, Ariel, Mulan and Bella, who were rewarded for being rebels and going against societal norms. You can argue the merits of portraying female characters with more agency, but there was an undeniable shift in focus at the company.

Disney was at its peak popularity during the renaissance, however, they'd eventually lose their grip on the boy market due to Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon offerings resonating more with them. The killing blow to Disney's dominance would arrive in the form of Pokemon. Anime was anathema to Disney's business model, they couldn't offer anything to boys, the closest they got was distributing Ghibli films, but even those were aimed primarly at girls.

However, Disney knew the importance of the female market, they began producing cheap sitcoms aimed at tweens; Lizzy McGuire, Hannah Montana, That's So Raven, etc. There was no trace of traditional values left, those sitcoms were overtly indulgent in how the female protagonists were the center of the world and were full of platitudes about friendship, teamwork, tolerance, kindness, etc.

With the female demographic captured, they launched a nuke, the Jonas Brothers. Disney primed a generation of girls to like boybands, their boybands. At this point there was a whole generation of girls who grew up with disney sitcoms and boybands, who were used to thinking themselves as the center of the world, who cared about the vapid values Disney were using to mask their shows in order to hide they were basically selling sex to female teens. They were selling the embodiment of an illusion.

Disney tried to recapture some of the male demographic by buying Marvel, but they had forgotten how to appeal to them. You know how it goes, the MCU became shit, Star Wars became shit. But don't think of Captain Marvel, Rey or The Acolyte as things that just appeared one day, no, they are a direct result of emotionally stunted women, be it as the audience or producers. Disney keeps buying other companies, hoping to diversify their audience, they unintentionally keep giving crazy women more power because that's what they have.

Since those girls, now adult women don't care about having a family anymore, Disney has developed a symbiotic relationship with them. "Disney adults" is mostly a female thing. Pronouns and gender shit is mostly a women thing. Racial issues are a women thing. Single women, non mothers disproportionally skew liberal. Black women want to turn Ariel black because they are jealous they didn't get coddled up in the same way, they are jealous and feel entitled to the same veneration, that's the true face of "representation". Rachel Zegler is self centered and smug because she really believes she's that special. Wish fails because those women are so out of touch with reality they fundamentally misunderstand morality; someone who gatekeeps, who tells them 'no' is a de facto villain.

Just recently Disney realized they accidentally fucked up their business model. They are at a crossroad, they can't keep pandering to stunted women while trying to capture the kid demographic. Boys don't watch Win or Lose, boys don't watch the Owl House.

But it goes further than Disney, Disney isn't the only cause, but it's the most prominent player on what effectively amounts to the feminization of (pop) culture. It bleeds everywhere. Games, movies, music, comics, literature, tabletops. Women demand to be coddled up and validated. Women resent men media and want to claim it.

In summary:

*Disney injected themselves in european and american culture, effectively replacing them with their own brand of consumerism.

*Disney groomed a generation of emotionally stunted women who are used to being told how special they are and seeing the world with a black and white morality.

*Disney literally forgot how to appeal to boys/men, as consequence, every male IP they buy becomes prime grounds for liberal women claiming it as their own

*Women are the biggest spenders and corpos like Disney thrive on compuse/feelings driven purchases

NoA's CEO, Jack Bowser, was an EA vicepresident. Iwata, a game programmer, was succeeded by a banker and then an economist.

All the decisions they make nowdays, including adding more globohomo to their games, can be explained by this

Conservatives and right-wingers are the only acceptable target.

Why do you think Kimmel tried to characterize the killer as MAGA? Because he can't joke about him being gay, having a troon boyfriend, being antifa, not even about being a furry. Mocking right-wingers, even if they were victims of murder is considered safe comedy

One of the dirtiest tricks leftists employ to perpetuate their ideology in the public mind is framing all social and political issues within their ideological frame. They are also experts on manipulating language in order to give it counterintuitive meanings (doublethink)

Using the term 'cancel culture' validates their idea that some opinions are so vile that have to be removed from public discourse and, if they return to power, the public will accept firing people for the wrong political opinions as acceptable, securing their position as arbitrers of the public discourse.

That's not at all what's happening here, we aren't getting people fired because of their opinions, but because they are calling for violence. Leftists are playing their usual game of trying to pass violence as speech and viceversa, there's a clear difference between the two of them. We are acting on the principle that violence is incompatible with a civil society, don't let them twist this

If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

Hold them to their own standards

They just got better at hiding it, ironically because of Gamergate. Remember how openly smug they acted during gg? They thought labeling someone a "shitlord" and "neckbeard" was all they needed to unperson someone. Remember how activists like Big Red became laughing stocks?

When those labels became ineffective, they escalated: racist, sexist, transphobe, alt-right, nazi, fascist, etc. But the desired outcome remained the same. They want us gone. "No bad tactics, only bad targets".

They became better at obfuscating their intentions, they hide behing platitudes and slogans

As you know, Google will beging implementing AI services from "verifymy" to add age checks.

From the verifymy about page:

• We will not keep your personal data for any longer than is necessary in light of the reason(s) for which it was first collected. When we conduct a check, we typically plan to keep the personal data for the periods provided below:

• We may share your data with external third parties, as detailed below in section 8, that are based outside your country of residence which may be located outside of the EEA. In such cases we will take suitable steps in order to ensure that your personal data is treated just as safely and securely as it would be within the UK or EU.

• We share the results of our age verification service with our business customers when you make a purchase or access their site (or attempt to do these things) and they request that we verify your identity.

• If we sell, transfer, or merge parts of our business or assets, your personal data may be transferred to a third party in connection with that event. (We may seek your additional consent to this disclosure or omit your face maps from our disclosure if we believe either approach is required by applicable law.). Any new owner of our business or assets and their suppliers may continue to use your personal data in the same way(s) that we have used it, as specified in this Privacy Policy.

• Our Site may contain links to other websites. Please note that we have no control over how your data is collected, stored, or used by other websites and we advise you to check.

• We may change this Privacy Policy from time to time. This may be necessary, for example, if the law changes, or if we change our business in a way that affects how your personal data is protected.

• Any changes will be posted on our Site. We recommend that you check this page regularly to keep up-to-date.

Btw, did you know they updated their site last December? Here's how it used to look like

>Proud to be funded by Google for Startups

If I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd say the government is in cahoots with Google and other big tech companies to scrape user data. But that'd be crazy, insane even.

Historically, commies had hated the rainbows as much if not more. Read about Stalin, Mao or El Che, gays are seen as bourgeois decadence.

Where did the myth that only fascists hate lgtb come from? Why are so many rainbows commies?

is pro refugee anti-american propaganda.

Demons being actually good while humans are the real monsters has been so played out Frieren portraying them as, you know, evil, is actually refreshing for once.

SPOILERS: Humans fucking nuke hell while American Idiot plays in the background

Even Tameem Antoniades' reboot wasn't as bad as this