Advice for UK Visitors (Don't wear tops at Disney)

[mkt]

Gotta go with the Bud! I'm from the South you know!:animwink: Eh. don't tell the church!

Bon apetit y'all!

 

[duck_daddy]

Bon apetit y'all!

I know you tried but you gotta relax a little when you say yawl, it's gotta flow and come from down deep!

 

[duck_daddy]

Minor thread drift.......how do I make Junior Member go away and replace it with something snazzy!

 

[Enderikari]

Make that check out to Steve for $5 for the Premium Member status, then you can make it anything you want

 

[duck_daddy]

Make that check out to Steve for $5 for the Premium Member status, then you can make it anything you want

But it says MKT is just a guest and his has been modified, I thought maybe it was possible to alter without paying. Not that I mind paying, just really don't want to pay $5 just so I can change a few letters!

 

[mkt]

But it says MKT is just a guest and his has been modified, I thought maybe it was possible to alter without paying. Not that I mind paying, just really don't want to pay $5 just so I can change a few letters!

I let my subscription lapse, so the status stays the same it was when I was last a member :lol:

 

[duck_daddy]

I let my subscription lapse, so the status stays the same it was when I was last a member :lol:

Ahhhhhhhh, that explains alot!

 

[mkt]

Ahhhhhhhh, that explains alot!

Plus, I'm rocking in the third world

 

[JimboJones123]

Okay, this is really easy.

The only purpose to naming the company is because it looks just like something else. That's their intent from the beginning. It isn't that they wanted to be called this and later, after printing thousands of shirts, letterhead, business cards and whatnot did they realize their error. So those that think this is a stupid controversy really need to step back and realize that they want you to associate their brand with F---!!! And that's it. That's why they sell the shirts.

For the consumer. They buy the products because they say ! Becuase it looks like F---. It is funny. I personally wouldn't buy one. But if it was with the actual words written out, it is funny. To wear it and not explain the joke is funny just to the wearer because they WANT everybody to think it means (boy, how many times am I accidently going to almost type that one wrong???). It's a gag to shock people and make them shake their heads. It's not because they like the brand. It isn't because it's a comfortible fit. It's because it almost says something naughty.

So for Disney to take a stand against a company that markets their product to look just like F--- but just slightly different because it can marginally pass for acceptable -- even though they know they are completely being not socially acceptable is fine in my book. To take a stand against wearers that clearly only have one purpose, and that is to turn heads in the parks and make people shake their heads in mild to medium discust. If they really had any guts for their cause they wouldn't beat around the bush (is that phrase banned as well). Actually it actually makes the wearer look like a bigger schmuck by pretending to skirt the issue.

So good call Disney. They understand the purpose of wearing the brand. And also the reaction to the brand. And they feel it is not acceptable. Great Job. Just make sure you don't exclude any minority or special interest groups. That could be a problem. But censoring T-Shirts. Perfectly fine.

 

[DisneyChik17]

Okay, this is really easy.

The only purpose to naming the company is because it looks just like something else. That's their intent from the beginning. It isn't that they wanted to be called this and later, after printing thousands of shirts, letterhead, business cards and whatnot did they realize their error. So those that think this is a stupid controversy really need to step back and realize that they want you to associate their brand with F---!!! And that's it. That's why they sell the shirts.

For the consumer. They buy the products because they say ! Becuase it looks like F---. It is funny. I personally wouldn't buy one. But if it was with the actual words written out, it is funny. To wear it and not explain the joke is funny just to the wearer because they WANT everybody to think it means (boy, how many times am I accidently going to almost type that one wrong???). It's a gag to shock people and make them shake their heads. It's not because they like the brand. It isn't because it's a comfortible fit. It's because it almost says something naughty.

So for Disney to take a stand against a company that markets their product to look just like F--- but just slightly different because it can marginally pass for acceptable -- even though they know they are completely being not socially acceptable is fine in my book. To take a stand against wearers that clearly only have one purpose, and that is to turn heads in the parks and make people shake their heads in mild to medium discust. If they really had any guts for their cause they wouldn't beat around the bush (is that phrase banned as well). Actually it actually makes the wearer look like a bigger schmuck by pretending to skirt the issue.

So good call Disney. They understand the purpose of wearing the brand. And also the reaction to the brand. And they feel it is not acceptable. Great Job. Just make sure you don't exclude any minority or special interest groups. That could be a problem. But censoring T-Shirts. Perfectly fine.

Exactly! I agree with this 100%. I wanted to say something along these lines, but could not find the words in me. My mind was just baffled that people find this funny/cute/amusing.

 

[mkt]

Exactly! I agree with this 100%. I wanted to say something along these lines, but could not find the words in me. My mind was just baffled that people find this funny/cute/amusing.

My mind is baffled that your mind is baffled

Different strokes for different folks. If someone's different, don't get baffled- that leads to intolerance. Just accept them or move along.

 

[PhotoDave219]

You're right, but it's not like that catch-all would ever stand up in court. In fact

*Briefly consults attorney. Seriously, there's an ACLU attorney who's a friend of mine in the house right now. Not kidding, not hiding behind the internet. Dead serious. PM me for details if you MUST know*

Attorney says: None of what Disney says in the ticket will hold up in court. Especially if the other party can be considered a member of a protected class. However, what does a person stand to lose from this other than time and possibly a little indignation? The argument wouldn't stand up in court, but there's not many courts that would take up case.

True. And Rob, you know as well as i know that Disney will either 1 - settle the case out of course, with legalese barring all parties from speaking on the manner as well as no admission of fault or 2 - Drag it out all the way to the supreme court (who wont hear the case) for years and years and force people to outspend them.

Either way, its private property and meant to be a family friendly envionments. Its not just shirts, its all shirts that are deemed offensive. But while we cant have a hard and fast rule on what is and isnt offensive in this context, we all know it when we see it.

That being said, if you actually think that wear is appropriate wear for Disney, let me direct you up I-4 some, you'll be much happier there. I just happen to admire the Japanese people and that they often dress up to go to Tokyo Disneyland. When was the last time you saw someone in a dress shirt at MK who wasnt a DIsney employee (or me)?

 

[Epcotbob]

Free speech is free speech... A person's freedom to wear whatever they choose is the same right you are invoking by judging them in a public forum... A warped view of free speech would be restrictions on expression or speech- in other words, NOT FREE SPEECH. According to our constitution, free speech is a right every person is granted even if it makes others uncomfortable. Yes, I would prefer if only in the interest of "family values" (I use that term very loosely) park attendees would self-censor their t-shirts, but I would never be so presumptuous as to judge or discriminate againist anyone's fashion choices... that's for Disney to do- it's their property.

Your point is well taken.

We have constitutionally protected rights to hold and express our political, moral, religious, or whatever views even if they make others uncomfortable.

Obscenity however is not protected by the first amendment, nor was it ever intended to be. The Federal Government and the States are permitted to restrict obscene or ographic speech usually based on community standards.

If I wore a tee-shirt with ographic pictures in a public place or sat in a public park screeming profanities, I would likely and rightfully be restricted or even arrested. That might offend the "free speech purists", but the majority would agree and be relieved that the profane person was not allowed to continue thier "speech".

That's just in public. Private entities are given far more latitude in restricting speech or other forms of expression on thier property, as they should be through freedom of association protections.

 

[DisneyChik17]

My mind is baffled that your mind is baffled

Different strokes for different folks. If someone's different, don't get baffled- that leads to intolerance. Just accept them or move along.

I accept them, I just don't understand them. I'm probably one of the most tolerant people around. I just get confused easy.

 

[JimboJones123]

Sorry, but that doesn't work. The company in question has made a whole marketing campaign focused around how close that word is to the swear word in question. Now, I believe in freedom of speech and expression as well, but I also believe that companies have the right to run their business as they see fit. If Disney makes it their policy to not allow those despicable shirts as a rule, then as a guest, you either follow those rules, or you don't visit.

Ditto. The only reason to knee jerk to support the wearing of the logo is to say that you want to wear it just so you can play the "I promise it doesn't mean anything further hehehehehe!!!" If you wern't looking to be in the spotlight and cause a controversy, you would never wear that logo. Plain and simple.

I used to have a "NO FEAR" shirt in my teen years. Knew not to wear it to school for sure.

Balls. AKA Cojones.
You should have several of these.
Preferably brass or steel.
Extra Large.

I knew what it meant. I knew that it wasn't something I could wear at church youth group either. Just a jacking around (hahaha) shirt for the weekends. Now, I don't find it quite as funny at all. Maybe on College campus or at a club, but not out to eat or to a sporting event. Gosh I'm old. But yeah, my purpose of wearing it was to offend at the time. Same with wearing the logo. It wouldn't be because they use a triple stitch that you just love.

 

[JimboJones123]

I accept them, I just don't understand them. I'm probably one of the most tolerant people around. I just get confused easy.

The non-confused tick me off too. We need an old fashion tar and feathering!!!

 

[JimboJones123]

Exactly! I agree with this 100%. I wanted to say something along these lines, but could not find the words in me. My mind was just baffled that people find this funny/cute/amusing.

Yeah, I'm still kinda not understanding what I was saying myself. Hopefully it was clear. Thanks.

 

[DisneyChik17]

Yeah, I'm still kinda not understanding what I was saying myself. Hopefully it was clear. Thanks.

I think you were trying to say that it's not clever, it's immature. It's not funny it's stupid. It's not the next great thing, it's just a lame attention stealing method. Am I on track here?

 

[mkt]

True. And Rob, you know as well as i know that Disney will either 1 - settle the case out of course, with legalese barring all parties from speaking on the manner as well as no admission of fault or 2 - Drag it out all the way to the supreme court (who wont hear the case) for years and years and force people to outspend them.

Correct. Off topic, I believe you know who the attorney is

Either way, its private property and meant to be a family friendly envionments. Its not just shirts, its all shirts that are deemed offensive. But while we cant have a hard and fast rule on what is and isnt offensive in this context, we all know it when we see it.

Fair enough. Where do I complain about the religious shirts I see in the park? Or political shirts? Or any military shirts? I find all three of those offensive. Why are they allowed? I spend my money there as well, so why is my opinion (and those of people like me) ignored?

Dave, you of all people should get my point

That being said, if you actually think that wear is appropriate wear for Disney, let me direct you up I-4 some, you'll be much happier there.

I do enjoy the free beer at Sea World but anyway, I'll respect Disney's choice to ban certain articles of clothing in the parks... and speak with my wallet. Plus, I live next to the beach now... where do you think I go to after class/work nowadays?

I just happen to admire the Japanese people and that they often dress up to go to Tokyo Disneyland. When was the last time you saw someone in a dress shirt at MK who wasnt a DIsney employee (or me)?

I've been to TDLR. People do dress more nicely. But I didn't see anyone in what I would consider a dress shirt. As to when was he last time... myself in the mirror a few months back.

 

[mkt]

I think you were trying to say that it's not clever, it's immature. It's not funny it's stupid. It's not the next great thing, it's just a lame attention stealing method. Am I on track here?

Yup. And that's also an opinion, which happens to be the complete opposite of mine.

Some may call it immature, I call it being mature enough to choose what you want.

Some call it lame, I call it clever