New Book Alleges Walt Disney Was A Pedophile

[82_28]

I am going to cautiously wade in here. As I do consider simulist a friend from afar. However, I will say, that saying Disney was a "gay" pedophile carries with it the weight, perhaps a little more than, a Ted Haggard snorting meth out of the buttcrack of some gay hooker. It made a bit of a difference that that kook was doing gay things in light of what he stood for. "Straight upstanding America"

But this "news" also carries with it the double bind. In a time where we are searching for ways to equalize and by and large most people supporting gay rights, we also have the next to needless hysteria of pedophiles in our midst, everywhere!!!!1! We can bind these two to the veneration Disney Inc. enjoys and has for forever. Hence, the double bind. It's akin to the war on Christmas.

There was an old steel worker in Pennsylvania who liked to molest little boys, my dad being one -- his uncle. Never made the "news" as it were. It made people hurt. My father, being a gay man, is very protective of me still to this day. And honestly, it is because he is gay and he gets shit for it and I will literally destroy any other human who gives my dad shit ever again. He has paid his dues. He's the most fucking genuine person you'd ever meet. However, fuck with my dad (THE ACT OF SEX HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING GAY) and I will fuck with you. He took his lumps from perverts as a kid. But totally ended the cycle with me and my brother. There's some poetry in that. I don't know what it is and yet I do. I literally want to kill the people (relatives) who did shit to him when he was a kid. LITERALLY!!! But they're dead. Yet, I also don't want to know one thing about it. I know enough.

[Stephen Morgan]

a "white pedophile" is maybe because everyone knows Walt Disney is white

Certainly since they froze his head.

I'm not going to the wall over this...

Really?

Maybe he'll just keep his back to it.

But it's news that Disney was gay. Like when Hillary Clinton was having that lesbian affair, or when Maz Mosely was indulging in Sado Masochism.

I don't think paedos are choosy. Male, female, it's the paedoing they're into. So only going for the boys might be remarkable in itself.

Idiocracy was rubbish.

Some of us prefer to have a fixed width or post, possibly based on the old usenet type consensus of eightyish character wide posts.

Is kissing someone's ring some sort of sexual euphemism? I know the Pope likes having his ring kissed. Seems unhygienic to me.

I'm sure priests go batty when they see Pedophile Priest together in the same sentence and worry the association will stick in people's minds but only the ignorant are going to assume you can't have one without the other.

I think it's pretty like that now, people assume priests rape children. Altar boys specifically.

[Stephen Morgan]

Language matters.

"Words mean things" -- Rush Limbaugh

[82_28]

How can you say Idiocracy was "rubbish"? WTF ever. The film was brilliant and needed to be made. It was made.

What was wrong with Idiocracy?

[Searcher08]

I had a dream last night in which I was asked to post into this thread that everyone here at RI (self included) is/are actually quite batshit insane.

Thank you for your attention, please carry on.

[wordspeak2]

Brekin, I'm sorry this is going on and on, but I'm inclined to weigh in, as well. Thank you, Project Willow, for your explanation of how the terms "gay" and "pedophilia" are disgustingly linked as one meme in the public sphere. Brekin, what do you not get about not feeding into that? Words have meaning/influence beyond their absolute literal- check out the Newt Gingrich thread. Also note the entire career of Noam Chomsky. ahem.

It's just like when someone says, "Yo, this black dude just robbed me!," when they would never say, "This white dude just robbed me!"- they would just say, "This dude robbed me." This is inherently racist. Furthermore, this plays into the popular societal notion that black people are robbers, which is extremely fucked up. We have to be aware of the cultural linguistic landscape, and take care in what "memes" we put out there, beyond just being technically correct about something. We live in a society in which a presidential candidate (Rick Santorum) just compared gay sex to bestiality, and continues to be in the race. I'd say there's still some bigotry out there- please consider how what you say will be received.

Mention of Walt Disney's alleged pedophiliac sexual preference should be (parenthetical), in order to not play into anto-gay bigotry.

Separately, 82_28, you lost me on "THE ACT OF SEX HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING GAY." You even put it in CAPS- what the hell are you talking about? Queer activists when I was in college saw it exactly the opposite, i.e.- the one thing people can't stand to think of re gayness is the actual sex. Most people these days except the extreme wingnuts are ok with people being gay... in theory... just not around me... just as long as I don't have to internalize it. Thus, queer activists would chalk drawings of sexual activists and (the most) vulgar words all around campus once a year. In a campus fraught with controversy, this was the most heated things would get every year, with the university always trying to ban the chalkings. I'm curious to hear you out, though. It's certainly true that lesbian sex/sexuality in particular has become fairly accepted in heteronormative culture, because lots of guys like to think about two girls having sex, and the media has been playing into that... but male gay sex? No way. Men don't have sex with each other. Maybe they have it with boys- fucking pedophiles! Or with dogs! ya know?

Anyway, though, Walt Disney was certainly a sick fuck.

p.s. What the hell is "Idiocracy", btw?

[Sounder]

searcher08 wrote...

I had a dream last night in which I was asked to post into this thread that everyone here at RI (self included) is/are actually quite batshit insane.

We are really. As Bernay’s and others know, the masses are controlled through emotional triggers. This is countered by (2nd matrix) good hearted folk who try to bring refinement to the meaning content of various representations. I think that the secret to success of Bernay’s ilk is that they know how to manufacture triggers. With a result being that good hearted folk are distracted into expending intellectual energy on worthy though limited elements while neglecting deeper issues.

Quoting myself from a need to embrace my insanity

Possible stuff to consider;

Influence of the transgressive impulse on the formation of art. (Code is everywhere)

Pedophilia as validation that the subject is 'in control'.

Why do we find so many of our cultural giants to have such abusive personal lives?

[crikkett]

Why do we find so many of our cultural giants to have such abusive personal lives?

My supposition is that it's just as pervasive among the rest of us.

[bks]

Four pages of metacommentary may have been saved had brekin [or WRex] simply put the phrase "gay pedophile" in quotation marks. Or, maybe not.

When people write stupid, hostile or otherwise noteworthy phrases that we want to call attention to, putting quotes around it makes the point. If brekin didn't think it was a stupid or homophobic claim, serendipitously it turns out that he still could have put quotes around it as a way to simply denote that this is someone else's exact construction. But that would still have required him understanding the phrase's construction was noteworthy.

If [as may sadly be the case if the evidence in this thread can be trusted] brekin did not understand that that particular phrasing was noteworthy, well, that's why we have the really smart mods we do, to fix stuff in the least invasive way possible consistent with keeping this space a hospitable one. [If this isn't the ethos of RI moderation, maybe Jeff could articulate it more clearly, or point to where it has been articulated more clearly?]

So can I ask you, Wombaticus, did you consider placing quotation marks around "gay pedophile" before deleting "gay"? Curious to know. And to others: would you have objected to quotes being placed around the offending phrase in the title?

[brekin]

slomo wrote:

Really, Brekin, I would have had more respect for you if you had just come out and unabashedly owned up to thinking that gay pedophiles are worse than "straight" ones (whatever a "straight" pedophile is). The failure to take any responsibility at all - and then trying to project it back on me as if after being an out gay man for 25+ years I would somehow be conflating gay and pedophile and not reacting to a known cultural phenomenon that has an effect on my personal life - is really kind of just nauseating. I mean, for you. I don't really give a fuck at the end of the day. FFS, it's just an internet forum.

Look this thread was hijacked by a few sanctimonious p.c. keyword hijackers. A la Hugh they fixated on a few
words and made sweeping generalizations from that and assigned motives that are just not there in this instance. Like with Hugh to deny the specific instance or challenge the relationship to a greater problem is to run the risk of "not getting it" or being a rube or even blindly working for the conspiracy. With the added burden of loyalty oaths and shaming tactics of calling up those who have been harassed and killed because of their sexual orientation.

This thread is not about how some people in society conflate gay and pedophile but how Walt Disney
was an alleged gay pedophile. You want to discuss how some people conflate it, wonderful, start a new thread.
I've never denied some ignorant people conflate the two words and they are synonymous for them. But by the sheer fucking fact they are two separate words with two separate dictionary definitions I would assume thinking people can tell the difference. That you are worried some ignorant people can't,and don't, is your journey. You have my encouragement and I don't deny it is a tragic and unfortunate situation. But those that do already are lost in my book and if they already think they are one in the same, wouldn't having two words actually reinforce they are different?

I'd have more respect for you if you respected my right to think for myself. To join words together and have faith that I won't make retarded conclusions from them or others on the board are intelligent enough to know how to read a sentence correctly.
I'd have more respect for you if you didn't try to smear me by accusing me of a being a homophobe because I disagree on how to describe someone by their sexual behavior and preference with widely accepted words. You and no one else has suggested a better way to describe what specifically Walt is alleged to have done. I was the one who came up with pederast. All I've seen is
people weigh in with whether the word combination makes them easy or not because what some people can't tell the words a part.

I'm sorry you've had to deal with an ignorant cultural phenomenon but no one has argued that gay = pedophile, or will.
Really this thread isn't about you. It's about Walt Disney.

wordspeak wrote:

It's just like when someone says, "Yo, this black dude just robbed me!," when they would never say, "This white dude just robbed me!"- they would just say, "This dude robbed me." This is inherently racist. Furthermore, this plays into the popular societal notion that black people are robbers, which is extremely fucked up. We have to be aware of the cultural linguistic landscape, and take care in what "memes" we put out there, beyond just being technically correct about something. We live in a society in which a presidential candidate (Rick Santorum) just compared gay sex to bestiality, and continues to be in the race. I'd say there's still some bigotry out there- please consider how what you say will be received.

Mention of Walt Disney's alleged pedophiliac sexual preference should be (parenthetical), in order to not play into anto-gay bigotry.

I get that. And that can play into racist agendas and does. But on a everyday level you know their are majorities and minorities based purely on population in this country. Depending where you live the majority is the assumed group. Ethnic and sexual minorities, are that: minorities. We say "that black dude robbed me" to differentiate them from the assumed majority. Or even to specify exactly what group they belong to. If you get robbed by a black guy and are taken down to the police station are you not going to tell them the race of your assailant, because you don't want to be racist? I would guess in Johannesburg or in Atlanta they would say "the white dude robbed me!" when in fact he did, because that would immediately differentiate from the assumed majority.

It is the same thing with gay pedophile. Gays make up 10-15% of the population so we would assume (if we are not ignorant) that when someone says pedophile they are probably talking about a straight one as the default. That is why we say gay pedophile to clarify, and further specify.

I'm really amazed I even have to explain any of this. Because some people make ignorant conclusions from some value free word combination's, we need to stop using them?

[psynapz]

p.s. What the hell is "Idiocracy", btw?

Dude, it took longer to type that than it would have taken to Google it. Top result should, without even clicking on it, be sufficient to indicate that it's the title of a fairly recent feature film.

[slomo]

Four pages of metacommentary may have been saved had brekin [or WRex] simply put the phrase "gay pedophile" in quotation marks. Or, maybe not.

When people write stupid, hostile or otherwise noteworthy phrases that we want to call attention to, putting quotes around it makes the point. If brekin didn't think it was a stupid or homophobic claim, serendipitously it turns out that he still could have put quotes around it as a way to simply denote that this is someone else's exact construction. But that would still have required him understanding the phrase's construction was noteworthy.

If [as may sadly be the case if the evidence in this thread can be trusted] brekin did not understand that that particular phrasing was noteworthy, well, that's why we have the really smart mods we do, to fix stuff in the least invasive way possible consistent with keeping this space a hospitable one. [If this isn't the ethos of RI moderation, maybe Jeff could articulate it more clearly, or point to where it has been articulated more clearly?]

So can I ask you, Wombaticus, did you consider placing quotation marks around "gay pedophile" before deleting "gay"? Curious to know. And to others: would you have objected to quotes being placed around the offending phrase in the title?

Here's the thing: I can see two admirable responses in light of the mistake. Either say "Gosh I'm sorry, I hadn't stopped to think about how the phrase gay pedophile may reinforce certain stereotypes and therefore hurts a whole class of people, that was really careless of me" or else just own up to it and say "yeah, I do actually think it's worse to molest little boys than little girls, and I suspect that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles." What is especially lame and cowardly is to say "I was just being extra precise in my language and by the way if you are reading into my words than it must be your problem, not mine". I reiterate that what I find particularly offensive is Brekin's attempt to transfer responsibility to me, when in fact I am a member of the aggrieved group in this case. That is an extremely low move.

Anyway, I'm out of this thread now. I will carry with it only my rock bottom opinion of Brekin, but also some comfort that the rest of the RI community is actually very sensitive to the issues gay people face with the use of language to reinforce our second-class status. As for Disney, who gives a fuck, the guy's dead; this is a problem only if they succeed in reanimating his frozen head.

[winston smith]

Brekin,

I hope you know im not being hostile here but its important i say I think you are wrong.

I also think the below quote was a little insensitive.

Yes. That is horrible and unfortunate that you had that experience (especially with a relative.)

I cant imagine what it must feel like to have that sort of accusation thrown at me casually by a stranger.

This thread contains first hand confirmation from someone about how these seemingly small associations can have a powerful influence over peoples thinking and society in general. Its a much more important subject than I feel you give it credit for.

[brekin]

slomo wrote:

Here's the thing: I can see two admirable responses in light of the mistake. Either say "Gosh I'm sorry, I hadn't stopped to think about how the phrase gay pedophile reinforces certain stereotypes and therefore hurts a whole class of people, that was really careless of me" or else just own up to it and say "yeah, I do actually think it's worse to molest little boys than little girls, and I suspect that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles." What is especially lame and cowardly is to say "I was just being extra precise in my language and by the way if you are reading into my words than it must be your problem, not mine". I reiterate that what I find particularly offensive is Brekin's attempt to transfer responsibility to me, when in fact I am a member of the aggrieved group in this case. That is an extremely low move.

Anyway, I'm out of this thread now. I will carry with it only my rock bottom opinion of Brekin, but also some comfort that the rest of the RI community is actually very sensitive to the issues gay people face with the use of language to reinforce our second-class status. As for Disney, who gives a fuck, the guy's dead; this is a problem only if they succeed in reanimating his frozen head.

Look, I've addressed your comments. If you have a problem with me, fine take it up with what I post.
But please don't invoke my name when you don't reply to what I post, ok? It's clear we don't agree, the thread title
was changed basically on thread birth, you don't care about Walt, etc so really by all means create a new thread specific to this or something because again this thread isn't about you. That's not being harsh, it's just a fact. You were offended by what the thread title might suggest to stupid people, I thought that was unfounded. Your not going to change my mind, I'm not going to change yours, that doesn't make me Pat Robertson.

And further I've written my point into the ground and you've got a lot of stuff to quote from. I don't understand why you have to create mock arguments I haven't made? :

What is especially lame and cowardly is to say "I was just being extra precise in my language and by the way if you are reading into my words than it must be your problem, not mine".

And continually create binary choices that are ridiculous for me to choose? I'm not going for option A or option B and you refuse to see my point of view so obviously we are at a stalemate. For some reason you can't fathom me holding an option C or D so the bigot hunt is going to be fruitless. You obviously feel strongly about the possible connotations of the word pair for good personal reasons, but I'm not going to share the prescription of slapping a restraining order on certain accurate words to quixotically alleviate an already created false cultural phenomenon.

That's not being insensitive that's respecting the intelligence of others. I get some people will chunk the two words together, I get that may play into ignorant beliefs, but that is what dumb people do. To change the rules to accommodate dumb people is to start to make the game dumb.

Winston Smith wrote:

Brekin,

I hope you know im not being hostile here but its important i say I think you are wrong.
I also think the below quote was a little insensitive.

brekin Quote:
Yes. That is horrible and unfortunate that you had that experience (especially with a relative.)

Not hostile at all. More then a few people think I'm wrong.
But could you please explain how me empathizing with him about that experience is at all insensitive?
When people do shitty things to us it is bad. When those people are related to us it is especially bad.

I cant imagine what it must feel like to have that sort of accusation thrown at me casually by a stranger.
This thread contains first hand confirmation from someone about how these seemingly small associations can have a powerful influence over peoples thinking and society in general. Its a much more important subject than I feel you give it credit for.

This thread was never about (or wasn't suppose to be anyways) about how ignorant people conflate gay and pedophile.
It was about Walt Disney allegedly being a gay pedophile. It is not a small association when someone confuses the two, and
the OP was in no way was related to how ignorant people do that or possibly could even from the article title. It is a huge fucking leap and I'm not responsible for the people who make that leap. I'm not contributing to people making that leap. I'm not responsible for the people who make that leap and create problems for the people they crash into.

If someone writes White Supremacist I assume they know that there can be racist black supremacists. If someone writes Muslim Terrorist I assume they know there can be Christian terrorists. And on and on and on. I'm sure there are people who have suffered unjustly from the above and more comparisons, but end of the day we still have to use the tools even if the dumb or unskilled may misuse them.

[Bruce Dazzling]

In order to prevent this thread from degenerating further into a flame argument between two completely entrenched sides, I'm going to request that the discussion move forward towards something other than rehashing the same argument over and over. After all, you've all made your points several times, and there's always PMs if you still feel that you need to hash this out with individual posters.

Try discussing the book in the OP.

Walt Disney, the sainted godfather of pure family entertainment, is being posthumously accused of being a pedophile. It seems to me that that's the basis for a pretty good discussion, especially in light of what's been going on at Penn State. If it's not, then this thread will die a natural death.

But again, please move away from repeating the same argument that we've seen for four pages. If it continues, I'm afraid the Fire Pit will have a new resident.