Splash Mountain re-theme announced

[Father Robinson]

At one of our beaches today. Nobody complaining.

 

[Bairstow]

The bottom line is Tiana was a poor choice for a black Disney princess. She is really nothing more than a copy of Cinderella with different colored skin and hair. At least when you see Mulan or Moana you can tell that they tried to capture some sense of the ethnicity of the character. Tiana is more of an insult, it is as if Mattel decided to make black barbies by just changing the color of the plastic and color of the hair... Quite pathetic, yet I'm sure it was easier for Disney to do it that way than to try and develop a real character representative to the black girls in America

So what should Disney have done to make Tiana more "black" in your eyes.
Be specific, please.

 

[thomas998]

I dunno why you’re calling me a “woke warrior” or whatever nonsense. I never even said a word about changing the ride. I’m merely reacting to the reality that it is changing and I’m saying I think it’s a good thing. I’m pretty sure there’s a connection here and you can argue for it just as easily as against.

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.

 

[Kate F]

Doesn’t MK have capacity issues?

 

[21stamps]

How I view the past month-

The USA witnesses a man being murdered by a bad cop.

Most in the USA- “Holy Jiminy Cricket. We need to do something. We’re all feeling disgusted what can we do? Police reform, teaching our children better, coming together to talk and listen?”

Answer- NO! Let’s riot, loot, murder, tear down statues, deface monuments, abolish the police, search for any connection to any black stereotype ever.. and destroy all of it!!!!
We also need Black news channels, Black publications, Black YouTube channels, etc etc— and white as well!!! Let’s bring segregation back, and call it progress!!! Let’s make enemies based on the color of one’s skin. Let’s wipe the face of history from public view. This is forward thinking!!

“But, um, what if we just wanted police reform and unity, meaningful change?“
Answer- Racist!!!!!!!

 

[Bairstow]

Still wonder why the Irish aren't all offended because their mascot is a drunken midget who likes to fight?

Ever here an Irishman complain>

It shouldn't be confusing. The University Notre Dame, an institution historically composed of people of Irish decent, chose their own mascot. Do you see why this is a different situation from an all-white institution picking a caricature of a different, more marginalized ethnicity to promote their sports team?

That being said, not all Irish people find the mascot inoffensive. You may notice that people from the same group can have different opinions about things.

 

[Phil12]

I dunno why you’re calling me a “woke warrior” or whatever nonsense. I never even said a word about changing the ride. I’m merely reacting to the reality that it is changing and I’m saying I think it’s a good thing. I’m pretty sure there’s a connection here and you can argue for it just as easily as against.

It's easier to call people with whom they disagree names rather than have accurate information.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

It shouldn't be confusing. The University Notre Dame, an institution historically composed of people of Irish decent, chose their own mascot. Do you see why this is a different situation from an all-white institution picking a caricature of a different, more marginalized ethnicity to promote their sports team?

That being said, not all Irish people find the mascot inoffensive. You may notice that people from the same group can have different opinions about things.

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.

 

[Sue_Vongello]

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.

 

[21stamps]

There has always been an ugly side to humanity.. one that values hate and division over the nitty gritty of actually solving a problem.

We put divisive people on a platform, we destroy those who preach unity and meaningful change.

I keep thinking that someday we will evolve from repeating those same mistakes which get us nowhere..but it’s not looking good.

 

[Bairstow]

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.

The pertinent question isn't whether something should be changed because X-percentage of people are offended, but rather, knowing that the issue in question reflects certain moral deficiencies, does it it reflect the moral character the company or institution wants to present?

There's not some kind of empirical "how many people of X group(s) say they are offended" tipping point that has to be reached, if that's what you're asking.

 

[21stamps]

The pertinent question isn't whether something should be changed because X-percentage of people are offended, but rather, knowing that the issue in question reflects certain moral deficiencies, does it it reflect the moral character the company or institution wants to present?

There's not some kind of empirical "how many people of X group(s) say they are offended" tipping point that has to be reached, if that's what you're asking.

Well, we all better pack our bags and head back to wherever our ancestors came from.. oh wait, but what before that.. Maybe we could find a new planet to inhabit, and start fresh.. no history to ever acknowledge.

 

[Bairstow]

Well, we all better pack our bags and head back to wherever our ancestors came from.. oh wait, but what before that.. Maybe we could find a new planet to inhabit, and start fresh.. no history to ever acknowledge.

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

 

[ImperfectPixie]

The pertinent question isn't whether something should be changed because X-percentage of people are offended, but rather, knowing that the issue in question reflects certain moral deficiencies, does it it reflect the moral character the company or institution wants to present?

There's not some kind of empirical "how many people of X group(s) say they are offended" tipping point that has to be reached, if that's what you're asking.

My point is that if you look hard enough, you can find something to be offended by virtually everywhere. There are people whose mindset causes them to see negativity everywhere...it's the same sort of thing.

 

[Sue_Vongello]

The pertinent question isn't whether something should be changed because X-percentage of people are offended, but rather, knowing that the issue in question reflects certain moral deficiencies, does it it reflect the moral character the company or institution wants to present?

There's not some kind of empirical "how many people of X group(s) say they are offended" tipping point that has to be reached, if that's what you're asking.

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?

 

[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.