Splash Mountain re-theme announced

[ImperfectPixie]

Yes I agree with a vast majority of what you have said in your posts but I do disagree about the numbers ... and I admit that maybe I am too analytical and "numbers driven" (product of my career) but there DOES have to be a certain number that equates to a tipping point or else there would be utter anarchy.

Let's put it in practical application - Imagine if your HOA operated like that - imagine one homeowner says they are offended by the cars you own and the HOA forces you to buy new cars or move? Surely, you'd want some governing or limiting factors or sheer numbers to back up the reasons why you're being forced to change. If one person (yes that's an extreme number) can claim offense to anything and force change then what's the point of ever doing anything?

Again going back to my numbers - in my profession we accept a certain percentage of negative feedback as acceptable, why? Because it's impossible to get 100% positive feedback on anything. We would accept 20% negative feedback or below as the benchmark for success. There just has to be a number because 100% is just not possible, so if 80% of the people were happy then we do it.

Disney appears to be operating at a much smaller margin judging by the numbers ... they are aiming for 100% which is unrealistic. That's the argument I think most people are trying to make - if that is their target, then when does it end?

And when it comes to this, we're not just talking about Disney...the entire world is going crazy trying to eliminate anything potentially offensive.

 

[21stamps]

You are so bothered by the prospect of confronting uncomfortable parts of history that you just want to throw your hands up?

I’m not the one who is proposing to burn it all down

 

[thomas998]

Yes I agree with a vast majority of what you have said in your posts but I do disagree about the numbers ... and I admit that maybe I am too analytical and "numbers driven" (product of my career) but there DOES have to be a certain number that equates to a tipping point or else there would be utter anarchy.

Let's put it in practical application - Imagine if your HOA operated like that - imagine one homeowner says they are offended by the cars you own and the HOA forces you to buy new cars or move? Surely, you'd want some governing or limiting factors or sheer numbers to back up the reasons why you're being forced to change. If one person (yes that's an extreme number) can claim offense to anything and force change then what's the point of ever doing anything?

Again going back to my numbers - in my profession we accept a certain percentage of negative feedback as acceptable, why? Because it's impossible to get 100% positive feedback on anything. We would accept 20% negative feedback or below as the benchmark for success. There just has to be a number because 100% is just not possible, so if 80% of the people were happy then we do it.

Disney appears to be operating at a much smaller margin judging by the numbers ... they are aiming for 100% which is unrealistic. That's the argument I think most people are trying to make - if that is their target, then when does it end?

It never ends, give me a few days and a petition and I could get hundreds of signatures asking for any change you could imagine from eliminating Tiana from the park to taking down Walt's statute to the color of the paint in a bathroom. You can always find gullible sheep to get upset about anything and everything.

 

[Bairstow]

Yes I agree with a vast majority of what you have said in your posts but I do disagree about the numbers ... and I admit that maybe I am too analytical and "numbers driven" (product of my career) but there DOES have to be a certain number that equates to a tipping point or else there would be utter anarchy.

Let's put it in practical application - Imagine if your HOA operated like that - imagine one homeowner says they are offended by the cars you own and the HOA forces you to buy new cars or move? Surely, you'd want some governing or limiting factors or sheer numbers to back up the reasons why you're being forced to change. If one person (yes that's an extreme number) can claim offense to anything and force change then what's the point of ever doing anything?

Again going back to my numbers - in my profession we accept a certain percentage of negative feedback as acceptable, why? Because it's impossible to get 100% positive feedback on anything. We would accept 20% negative feedback or below as the benchmark for success. There just has to be a number because 100% is just not possible, so if 80% of the people were happy then we do it.

Disney appears to be operating at a much smaller margin judging by the numbers ... they are aiming for 100% which is unrealistic. That's the argument I think most people are trying to make - if that is their target, then when does it end?

You're conflating two different concepts that are being discussed.
First, there's the question of how many people in the general public may or may not be offended by the issue in question, whether it's a theme park log flume ride or an ethnically-flavored sports mascot. There's also the sub-question of whether the offended people in this situation belong to the group that's arguably stereotyped or maligned by the issue in question.

Then you have the governing process of the body responsible for that issue (say, company that owns the theme park or the University that owns the sports team) and whereby that body determines whether to make changes and how to go about it.

In your HOA example, both groups are the same, but in the instant example of Disney and Splash Mountain the general public has no direct say in what corporate leadership decides to do about their attraction. I'm certain that Disney corporate took into consideration what their data said about proportion of the likely park-going public would think about doing nothing about the ride or re-themeing it, but ultimately they are the ones who make their own decisions about how to manage their properties, the same as a the administration and/or a board of regents at a university makes their own decisions. My point is that in no case do these governing bodies adhere to some sort of magic "X-people are offended so we have to do Y" rubric- they have their own criteria for coming to these decisions that ultimately is a moral one and not a data-driven one.

A number of people in this thread seem to be under the impression that the change.org petition somehow has governing power over the Walt Disney Company's corporate decision making, which is preposterous. This isn't "anarchy"- it's just a reality of collective leadership.

 

[Sue_Vongello]

You're conflating two different concepts that are being discussed.
First, there's the question of how many people in the general public may or may not be offended by the issue in question, whether it's a theme park log flume ride or an ethnically-flavored sports mascot. There's also the sub-question of whether the offended people in this situation belong to the group that's arguably stereotyped or maligned by the issue in question.

Then you have the governing process of the body responsible for that issue (say, company that owns the theme park or the University that owns the sports team) and whereby that body determines whether to make changes and how to go about it.

In your HOA example, both groups are the same, but in the instant example of Disney and Splash Mountain the general public has no direct say in what corporate leadership decides to do about their attraction. I'm certain that Disney corporate took into consideration what their data said about proportion of the likely park-going public would think about doing nothing about the ride or re-themeing it, but ultimately they are the ones who make their own decisions about how to manage their properties, the same as a the administration and/or a board of regents at a university makes their own decisions. My point is that in no case do these governing bodies adhere to some sort of magic "X-people are offended so we have to do Y" rubric- they have their own criteria for coming to these decisions that ultimately is a moral one and not a data-driven one.

A number of people in this thread seem to be under the impression that the change.org petition somehow has governing power over the Walt Disney Company's corporate decision making, which is preposterous. This isn't "anarchy"- it's just a reality of collective leadership.

Well again, I agree with largely with what you said EXCEPT when you say that the Disney company as a company does not have a number. In principle or in spirit your idea of "X number of offended people equals Y" works but ... come on ... to say Disney is making this decision out of a moral obligation flies in the face of how every corporation runs in this country, and most especially Disney. I've worked in corporate America, for multiple Fortune 100 companies, and not once have I seen one make a decision purely for moral reasons ... it's always data driven ... sometimes those sectors converge, and sometimes a moral idea propels them to look into data to support a "moral decision" but never purely moral.

 

[Rich Brownn]

I didn't read through the whole thread and I am sure it has been mentioned but it does bear mentioning again, especially to all the Disney Shills that are on these boards ...

The petition to save Splash Mountain far exceeds all of the petitions to retheme Splash Mountain combined.

But we all know petitions mean nothing ...

Although I will put one thing in perspective ... the total number of people who have signed all the re-theme Splash Mountain petitions combined equates to about 30K people. WDW alone gets 58M visitors a year and Disneyland is 19M ... therefore the people that want Splash Mountain re-themed equates to approximately 0.0003% of the park going population.

Disney Corporate Executives, Disney Shills, and whoever is paid by Disney to read these boards ... I am sure you factored those numbers into your decisions, right?

The numbers are irrefutable, the overwhelming majority do not want this change to happen- and here's something else shocking, not everyone that doesn't want it to happen is a racist. Some people are just sick of losing classic e-ticket attractions, some people want ADDITIONS to the park not re-themes because that doesn't help with crowd control, some people are scared at the prospect of losing an attraction with 100 AAs (a dying art) which will undoubtedly be replaced by an attraction with considerably less (maybe) ...

My point is this- there is a way to have this discussion with civility and grace and without assuming what someone's motives may be behind what they want to see happen here but at the end of the day there are two big arguments for both sides that come from these numbers:

1. Disney is clearly making a decision that goes against the numbers, maybe that means something, maybe they think they are doing the right thing? (Although maybe its a marketing ploy to detract from the park delays)

2. The people that don't want it changed is the OVERWHELMING majority, so maybe those that do want it changed shouldn't think all of those people are crazy or racist or un-woke or whatever.

That's all.

The overwhelming majority of the south the 1840 thought slavery was ok. The overwhelming majority of the 1920s thought segregation was ok. Heck in 1776 the overwhelming majority thought women were too dumb to vote. Not saying I support the SM retime but to use "the masses.." is a weak argument. As someone once said (I forget who) "the masses are "

 

[Bairstow]

Well again, I agree with largely with what you said EXCEPT when you say that the Disney company as a company does not have a number. In principle or in spirit your idea of "X number of offended people equals Y" works but ... come on ... to say Disney is making this decision out of a moral obligation flies in the face of how every corporation runs in this country, and most especially Disney. I've worked in corporate America, for multiple Fortune 100 companies, and not once have I seen one make a decision purely for moral reasons ... it's always data driven ... sometimes those sectors converge, and sometimes a moral idea propels them to look into data to support a "moral decision" but never purely moral.

It's probably more accurate to say it's a moral question with economic implications. The data people can put whatever numbers and charts they want up on the powerpoint but at the end of the day it's the men and women in the board room that make the decisions everyone else has to live with.

The Walt Disney Company in particular has a history of making decisions based on the instincts and whims of its leadership. Supposedly Splash Mountain was only greenlit in the first place because Michael Eisner's kid thought the model looked neat.

 

[21stamps]

The overwhelming majority of the south the 1840 thought slavery was ok. The overwhelming majority of the 1920s thought segregation was ok. Heck in 1776 the overwhelming majority thought women were too dumb to vote. Not saying I support the SM retime but to use "the masses.." is a weak argument. As someone once said (I forget who) "the masses are *****"

Not only “too dumb to vote”, but not even worthy of being put in the constitution. .


Fun fact 1- Women are nowhere mentioned in the constitution of the USA.

Fun fact 2- black men got the right to vote in 1870.

Fun fact 3- women got the right to vote in 1920.


Synopsis.. history has a lot of injustice, we can deal with it by erasing it from public view, or we can realize that time has moved on.. and we are all equal under the law, today.

 

[Sue_Vongello]

It's probably more accurate to say it's a moral question with economic implications. The data people can put whatever numbers and charts they want up on the powerpoint but at the end of the day it's the men and women in the board room that make the decisions everyone else has to live with.

The Walt Disney Company in particular has a history of making decisions based on the instincts and whims of its leadership. Supposedly Splash Mountain was only greenlit in the first place because Michael Eisner's kid thought the model looked neat.

Now we are on the same page! Thanks for allowing me to dissent and responding in kind.

 

[Kate F]

Rough draft:

 

[Bleed0range]

You're insinuation that the song was spawned from the racist song is not harmless at all as by doing so you are furthering a meritless accusation. The more times someone continues to spout off nonsense the better the chance of others to start simply believing the accusation. You made a decision to keep peddling the nonsense, now as you claim changing the ride is a good thing it is pretty obvious you're in the whole corner.

I mean what evidence do you have that it isn’t true? If you want, we can at least agree that neither of us know the full truth and never will and it is up to each individual to decide for themselves. Your bias towards liking the ride and song will always lead you to not believing there could be a connection.

My position is more neutral because Splash was never my favorite ride and although I like the song, I don’t care too much if it does have connections to racism. That’s fine. But the fact is the ride is based on a pretty outdated racist film with a song that at the very least can easily be compared to a racist song from the era the movie takes place.

So yeah, I’m okay with Disney making the change. I’d have been okay if they didn’t change it too. But they are and I think it’s for the best.

 

[21stamps]

I mean what evidence do you have that it isn’t true?

This is the biggest cancer in our society.. This sentence, listed right above.

 

[brb1006]

What a dumpster fire of a thread this is.

 

[Donaldfan1934]

Rough draft:
View attachment 480101
View attachment 480102
View attachment 480103

That was beautifully written Kate. It really goes to show that the positive impact the attraction has had on people’s lives over the past 3 decades far outweighs any negativity that’s ever been imposed upon it.

 

[aw14]

The question then becomes, should everyone do without something because a relative few are offended by it? I'm Irish, and to me, the "fighting Irish" stereotype can be perceived as a good thing as well - perseverance, toughness, determination, etc.

part of the reason why the KC Chiefs, Washington Redskins, Atlanta Braves, etc.. have, for now, kept their names. A small percentage may be offended. Ironically, those offense are typically not part of the group, and are usually the woke white liberals (no offense to anyone specifically here)

 

[the.dreamfinder]

 

[21stamps]

Never expected to read something like this..it’s definitely 2020.

** I should elaborate for those who may not understand my post-

Woke Folks, when Sean Lennon, son of Yoko and John, says you’re too much.. you’re probably too much.

 

[manmythlegend]

I think the big issue we have right now is people just have too much damn time on their hands with many of them not being able to go to work or do much in the way of entertainment. We need people to get back to work, we needs sports back to take up our evenings, and we need kids back in school. Once that happens, people just aren't going to have time for silly stuff anymore.

 

[thomas998]

Well again, I agree with largely with what you said EXCEPT when you say that the Disney company as a company does not have a number. In principle or in spirit your idea of "X number of offended people equals Y" works but ... come on ... to say Disney is making this decision out of a moral obligation flies in the face of how every corporation runs in this country, and most especially Disney. I've worked in corporate America, for multiple Fortune 100 companies, and not once have I seen one make a decision purely for moral reasons ... it's always data driven ... sometimes those sectors converge, and sometimes a moral idea propels them to look into data to support a "moral decision" but never purely moral.

Generally that is true, but never underestimate the stupidity of an executive in a company. I have seen theme make decisions based solely on personal beliefs and agendas, in tiny ways such as give X a job when his only qualification was being the CEO's daughter's softball coach to having to enter into a multi million dollar lease with a company simply because a VP's frat brother was working for the other company. One company I worked at suddenly embarked on a quest to have the same number of female engineers as Male engineers simply because the daughter of the CEO took some gender studies class and convinced him it was the thing to do... of course it ignored the reality that you couldn't find enough female petroleum engineers that were graduating from the schools where we recruited even if you could have forced every female PE to accept a job... so while I will agree that decisions aren't made to be nice they are often made for silly uninformed reasons that ignore the duty to shareholders.

 

[Sue_Vongello]

Generally that is true, but never underestimate the stupidity of an executive in a company. I have seen theme make decisions based solely on personal beliefs and agendas, in tiny ways such as give X a job when his only qualification was being the CEO's daughter's softball coach to having to enter into a multi million dollar lease with a company simply because a VP's frat brother was working for the other company. One company I worked at suddenly embarked on a quest to have the same number of female engineers as Male engineers simply because the daughter of the CEO took some gender studies class and convinced him it was the thing to do... of course it ignored the reality that you couldn't find enough female petroleum engineers that were graduating from the schools where we recruited even if you could have forced every female PE to accept a job... so while I will agree that decisions aren't made to be nice they are often made for silly uninformed reasons that ignore the duty to shareholders.

Exactly ... you can't conflate reciprocity or nepotism with a company willing to ignore data driven decision making strictly for moral reasons.