That's the problem though. We don't get to make up what the definition of what Racism is. It's not subjective, and it doesn't change. If you personally aren't aware of what falls under the umbrella of what is racist, that doesn't mean that it's not racist, it means you're ignorant.
I don’t think this.
This is an example of others changing their minds, and it mirrors my own experience. I don’t think it is or should be everyone’s experience. I have been helped by some things I’ve learned along the way, and I do get excited that others may benefit as I have.
In the posts of yours that I’ve read, you have not demonstrated that you understand but disagree with what I’ve bee saying.
I’m not sure what I’ve said that would make you feel guilted/shamed/chastised/belittled, but that has no been my intent. I’m sorry that I came across that way.
you say that i have not demonstrated that i understand... i feel exactly the same way from your posts... i dont feel like you actually understand any of the points i'm making... it seems like you solely want to talk at people until they either stop talking or agree with you. i'm not saying you need to agree with me but acting as if i "dont understand" constantly is belittling and not helpful. i'll say it again i understand your posts i foundationally disagree with how your form your opinions and the resulting opinions.
the webster definition of racism actually literally just changed recently lol... there used to be a day where the term had a clear meaning. that is not today though, there a numerous oppinions on what constitutes racism and apparently many levels of racism nowadays. for example some people say that sterotypes used in any form are racist, some think its only if the sterotype is used in a negative way. Some people think the aunt jamima logo was racist or that the illinois illini mascot is racist or that saying i dont see color is racist or saying unconscious bias is racist. then theres the thoughts on systemic racism and intuitional racism vs everyday racism. bottom line is that almost no two people have the same exact view on what racism means today. so no again no i'm not ignorant or uniformed on the issue
Respectfully disagree. There are very different, well intentioned philosophies here. The most salient distinction that comes to mind at the moment is probably the older philosophy of "colorblind, equality" vs. the newer philosophy of "Critical Race Theory, equity" (equity, if I understand correctly, means treating different groups differently because you are aiming for equal outcomes, while equality's goal is equal treatment). Also, if you do believe in Critical Race Theory as the guide to what "objective" racism looks like, it will by definition change over time, as a group's relative power over time changes. That is why, if I understand correctly, it is very difficult to really treat a white male in a way that is racist according to CRT, however, if, in 40 years white men were a severely oppressed minority, then it would be possible to treat them in a racist way. Last but not least, even who is considered 'white', 'white adjacent', 'white passing', etc., can change a fair bit if you go with the CRT lens, so one generation's person of color may be considered white in the next generation.
I wouldn’t be shocked if it was intentional.
I don’t actually understand most of the points you’ve been trying to make. I’m not sure if it has been your mocking tone, your lack of capitalization, your uncharitable summarizations of what others have posted, or if it’s just because we obviously don’t see things in the same way.
You think Disney is just “pandering to the woke mob” and “virtue signaling” with the announced changes.
You think that opinions from Black people on different sides of an issue cancel each other out.what if i told you that there are many people of color who dont think the changes are helpful or necessary? what if i told you that there were many people of color who love splash mountain the way it is and enjoy the songs? its funny how people just choose to ignore opinions if they are opposing their stance.
i'd invite you to expand your bubble to find these people because theyre are alot of them out there
You think you know what racism is and are in a better position than others to say what is and isn’t racist.
In addition to your expertise in racism, you’re also a Disney insider with strong opinions about their dealings in China.
You think identifying racial insensitivity is a slippery slope that will result in you not being able to enjoy things you like.
You are dismissive of the idea of being sensitive to racist imagery.
You think “colonialism” is responsible for medicine, education, and human rights. You also think that those who don’t agree with this are ignorant.
You can see nuance and degrees of goodness and badness, but you think others are lazy or unrealistic if they disagree with your opinions about what falls into those categories.
You think that any mention of racial sensitivity is racist, and people who care about these things are racist.
I agree. Society determines what is and isn’t racism. Heck, society even defines the concept of “race” in general. I think we’re in a time where we are in the process of re-defining these concepts.the webster definition of racism actually literally just changed recently lol... there used to be a day where the term had a clear meaning. that is not today though, there a numerous oppinions on what constitutes racism and apparently many levels of racism nowadays. for example some people say that sterotypes used in any form are racist, some think its only if the sterotype is used in a negative way. Some people think the aunt jamima logo was racist or that the illinois illini mascot is racist or that saying i dont see color is racist or saying unconscious bias is racist. then theres the thoughts on systemic racism and intuitional racism vs everyday racism. bottom line is that almost no two people have the same exact view on what racism means today. so no again no i'm not ignorant or uniformed on the issue
I can’t in good faith agree that a label that can ruin a person’s life is based on a subjective opinion.
to summarize no you dont get it, this comment makes it obvious that you should maybe try to actually understand what people are saying to you.
disney is obviously pandering to the woke mob, you cant think they actually care about racism while also using a country that has state sponsored racism to make money.
no i think you quoting black people that agree with you as evidence and ignoring the ones that dont agree with you is wrong.
i have an opinion on what racism is and its very different from yours, i also think your stance on racism is divisive and not helpful.
condescending tone... i've never said i'm an expert on racism, china is a useful example here as it shows obvious hypocrisy on their racism stance.
no i think your opinion on what is racial insensitivity is warped and i've actually said it think the jungle cruise changes will make the ride better.
not at all, i disagree with what you consider to be racist imagery. i dont like racist imagery. i actually cant think of anyone that likes racist imagery so thats an odd point...
nope didnt read what i said numerous times. i said colonialism is not an absolute evil. it had many good things that came from it and many bad things. theres literally research papers and books written on this subject it. educate yourself?
said nothing close to this
again no idea what youre talking about here as i said nothing close to this.
I sort of agree with you in that their primary concern is avoiding bad PR because it is good for business. I have good reason to believe that these changes weren't initiated internally and that a group who was offended by a long list of Disney park rides scared them into initiating these changes. So many companies do this nowadays, and while it is disingenuous for some, it doesn't mean that Disney doesn't have good intentions. They're doing the work to try to accommodate these concerns and there's likely to be some subjectively good results and some subjectively bad ones.
Colonialism affects every aspect of our world today. There is not a single thing that is not affected by the world's long history of colonialism. And yes there was probably some good that precipitated from it but I'm genuinely curious why you feel the need to defend it so staunchly? No one wants to celebrate the good about colonialism because you cannot do that without remembering the true atrocities that were committed in its pursuit.
I really appreciate you trying to get this thread back on track and I'm going to try to support you by saying they should use Marc Davis' idea for the man eating plant!
You’ve won the internet/board! This would be a great replacement for Trader Sam, and it could actually take his place as the “dramatic finale” of the ride. With perhaps an Easter egg for Sam left behind in the form of a mask and or skulls scattered around.
I do think the conversation is hindered by our rhetoric. When it comes to conversations about race, people often end up fighting over the rules of engagement and definitions of terms. To your point, society is so fractured these days that different factions/subcultures each have their own definitions of all the words we use in the discussion (see the weaponized uses of “woke,” “inclusion,” etc.). And yes, conversations become flame wars of mocking, condescension, and outrage that just drives people further into their echo chambers.
i'd argue that there was more good to come out of colonialism than bad. i dont think that justifies the bad i'm just looking at history and seeing the results that came from it and can argue that there were many many good things that came from it, again that doesnt justify the bad it simply disputes the claim i was responding to that said colonialism = racsim. which was ridiculous. i dont think you need to bring up the bad of everything when mentioning it. i dont feel the need to mention that washington owned slaves when i speak about his role in the revolution, that doesnt mean i condone owning slaves. i dont think its needed to mention that mlk cheated on his wife when mentioning his role in civil rights. i'm tired the attempt to rewrite history and ignore facts to support peoples politics now.
t.co
I feel like I could respond to this post on two levels. The first would be a deep dive into philosophy and is anything truly objective, is there objective morality, is it all just human constructs and enculturation, etc., etc., etc. This would result in about elebenty billion posts going round and round that would not ultimately resolve anything because humans have pondered these same questions for eons without a definitive answer (although I would find it fun, ha ha.)
I’m not sure if there’s anything I could add to this.
