I agree with much of this analysis.
What I most dislike about where this friction has got us is that people are much too quick to blame diversity for a film’s shortcomings. The idea that Buzzyear, for example, is a bad film because its creators focused too much on diversity makes zero sense when you stop to think about it. Are we really to believe that so much time was spent designing characters of colour and including a gay kiss that none was left to come up with a good story?
It also can work both ways.
I saw about 20 minutes of Lightyear. It didn't grab my kids attention, and neither my wife nor I were drawn in enough for it to outweigh all the other things we could have been doing with our time (I never thought time would be such a precious commodity until my second child, aka The Screamer, came along). It just wasn't that good, and we're apparently not the only ones to think that. So, the TV went back to Mickey Mouse Clubhouse for the millionth time this year.
Now, according to some online comments (not from here), we're wrong because we don't value diversity enough to give this film a chance. Maybe we don't. We definately didn't start watching Lightyear for some higher societal goal, but we did stop watching it because it failed to meet our immediate goal of entertaining us and drawing the attention of our two preschool children.
Yes, some pundits did focus on certain aspects of the film as a reason not to watch, but lets not pretend that others on the opposite sode of the aisle didn't use these reasons as a shield for the film just not being very good.
I'm seeing similar back-and -forth play out for Strange World, a film that most likely bombed from the combination of poor marketing, too high production costs and just not being particularly good, rather than the culture wars baggage that some have focused on.