Tiana's Bayou Adventure: Disneyland Watch & Discussion

[Californian Elitist]

I'm not sure how something can appear amplified and not be. Perhaps in a situation where you live in a village where propaganda is broadcasted 24/7 over speakers positions in the town square. Then, one day, the volume of the propaganda is turned down. A few days later, the propaganda returns to its original volume. I suppose then it would appear to be amplified yet be just the same as it always was.

Truthfully, I'm not invested enough in this discussion on whether or not social media has worsened our nation's situation. I'm sure there are scientific studies to prove one way or the other, but I'll leave it be.

Wouldn't that be an example of social media amplifying her voice? She could once only reach those in her immediate vicinity, now she can reach the entire globe.

Oh well, never mind this.

Very well, then I only have two simple questions: Will silencing those with dangerous ideas eliminate the danger to certain people, or is it necessary to eliminate the people, as well? Secondly, who determines which ideas are dangerous and, subsequently, who needs to be silenced?

It was pretty widely circulated last summer. I would assume anybody with contemporary political interest would be familiar with it.

Social media is an example of what you're confused about. Social media makes it seem like more people nowadays are trying to limit free speech. It's simply the platforms that make it seem like more and more people are anti-free speech in our contemporary society.

I'm not sure who the "her" and "she" person you're referring to.

It won't eliminate the danger if they've already had enough time to spout nonsense. Society, per usual, determines what ideas are dangerous.

 

[CaptinEO]

Exactly. People naturally love to voice their concerns about something they disagree with and try to monitor what people can and can't say and/or do. If anything, there has arguably never been a better time for free speech and expressing oneself. Free speech has historically been much more limited.

I think it's not necessarily about now being a better time for freespeech, just that what is and isn't acceptable continues to change.

There are some things you can't say now that were acceptable to say 10 years ago. However, there are also some things you can say now that weren't acceptable to say 10 years ago.

There's always continual change. I hate censorship, but it has always existed.

 

[CaptinEO]

No, I am being fair. I can tell by the responses that folks mocking my statement truly don't understand it. It's not a "philosophy" at all. I'm not trying to sway opinions. Again, not going to waste my time and energy on this further with people who intend to mock. I got enough of that for months with the lovely folks over in the previous political sub-forum.

People speak of "cancel culture" as if it's a current thing, when it's not. People have spoken out against things they don't approve of and have been trying to silence others since the beginning of time. Nothing new here.

Cancel culture is the same idea of shunning and isolating others that has been around forever, but with a different name. Many celebrities have had their careers ruined over the years.

It's like how people call "tips" "life hacks" now, same concept, different terminology.

 

[SplashGhost]

I agree with @Web Slingerz #1 Fan , Cancel Culture has existed under different names before. The problem with the current wave of Cancel Culture is that a lot of people on Twitter do it as a game. They try to find any mistake someone ever made and try to "cancel" them over it without caring about who they currently are as a person. Just look what happened to James Gunn (who thankfully was rehired and Hartley Sawyer (from The Flash). People on Twitter with agendas found jokes they said nearly a decade ago when the world was a very different place and they were very different people, yet they were judged for jokes that might be going too far now, but were just edgy humor at the time they were told. For a lot of people on Twitter, it is all about cancelling as many people as they can for the fun of it because it makes them feel personally vindicated when they succeed. There are people that should be called out on their actions, but unfortunately, social media isn't a nuanced and sophisticated enough place to know the difference between someone actively using their platform to spread hate and misinformation, and someone that made bad jokes 10 years ago.

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

Cancel culture exists. Nations have conquered other peoples and tried to remove their culture for years. I have friends from minority populations in nations outside the USA who lived through these attempts to eliminate their existence and traditions. It’s human sin nature and not limited to one race or white skin.

The difference is now cancel culture is done more on a wider if not global scale. It’s also a form of bullying and it happens directed toward people who disagree with a popular mindset or movement.

 

[Brer Panther]

Well... there is the way it was made, the people who made it, the appropriation of culturally important stories and the the overt stereotyping.

No, the main problem is it depicts an entire class of people in a way they may not want to be depicted.

It was considered racist before it was even released.

Okay, I worded that wrong. But romanticizing a time when blacks had it rough does qualify as depicting an entire class of people in a way they may not want to be depicted.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Cancel culture is the same idea of shunning and isolating others that has been around forever, but with a different name. Many celebrities have had their careers ruined over the years.

It's like how people call "tips" "life hacks" now, same concept, different terminology.

Yes, agreed. This is pretty much exactly what I’ve been arguing. I even said that we call it “canceling” now, but there are other terms for it.

I’ve seen over and over again people talking about “this new generation” being sensitive, wanting to limit free speech, creating “cancel culture,” etc. and how things weren’t always this way. No, this generation did not “create cancel culture.” That’s why I say it doesn’t exist. I mean it doesn’t exist and didn’t come about the way that some people think. It’s not a brand new concept that Millennials and Gen Z’ers have created, which some people seem to believe. Humans have been “canceling” other humans and things since forever. I’d argue the Salem Witch Trials is one of the oldest examples of “cancellations” in this country.

You’re right about celebrities. And even that isn’t new. Wasn’t Paul Reubens “cancelled” for being caught in an adult theater in the early 90s? Charlie Chaplin was “cancelled” after being accused of being a socialist and for his political beliefs in the United States decades ago. The list continues.

So yes, technically “cancel culture” is a thing, but not as some folks believe and it’s not a new thing that should be blamed on Millennials and Gen Z’ers, as it so often is. That’s what I object to. “Cancel culture” will never go away, clearly. People will come up with a different name for it in the future and it will continue.

 

[CaptinEO]

Yes, agreed. This is pretty much exactly what I’ve been arguing. I even said that we call it “canceling” now, but there are other terms for it.

I’ve seen over and over again people talking about “this new generation” being sensitive, wanting to limit free speech, creating “cancel culture,” etc. and how things weren’t always this way. No, this generation did not “create cancel culture.” That’s why I say it doesn’t exist. I mean it doesn’t exist and didn’t come about the way that some people think. It’s not a brand new concept that Millennials and Gen Z’ers have created, which some people seem to believe. Humans have been “canceling” other humans and things since forever. I’d argue the Salem Witch Trials is one of the oldest examples of “cancellations” in this country.

You’re right about celebrities. And even that isn’t new. Wasn’t Paul Reubens “cancelled” for being caught in an adult theater in the early 90s? Charlie Chaplin was “cancelled” after being accused of being a socialist and for his political beliefs in the United States decades ago. The list continues.

So yes, technically “cancel culture” is a thing, but not as some folks believe and it’s not a new thing that should be blamed on Millennials and Gen Z’ers, as it so often is. That’s what I object to. “Cancel culture” will never go away, clearly. People will come up with a different name for it in the future and it will continue.

Agreed on all fronts. Disney fans especially should know about all the dumb changes Disney made to their films due to "outrage". Such as The Little Mermaid and Aladdin as well as doing things like digitally removing cigarettes in films and shorts.

Lets also remember Pirates of the Caribbean, which has been continually censored since the 90s.

Amidst legitimate outrage there are people that just want to see a celebrity or a piece of art suffer. But again, not a new concept.

We are right now a rapidly changing society/political climate, bundle this with the fact that social media has existed for over a decade and you have the perfect storm of being able to bring up people's past.

 

[el_super]

The problem with the current wave of Cancel Culture is that a lot of people on Twitter do it as a game. They try to find any mistake someone ever made and try to "cancel" them over it without caring about who they currently are as a person. Just look what happened to James Gunn (who thankfully was rehired

Yeah.... people have been "cancelling" each other in that way, as a game, for centuries. It's no different now.

Do you remember that time that Walt Disney hired a progressive liberal to try to make Song of the South less racist, and then basically "cancelled" him a year later because he was a card carrying communist? Those McCarthy hearings were so much fun weren't they?

More to the point though: James Gunn apologized over the remarks he made, and noted that he had actually changed as a person. He stopped making those childish jokes years prior. People on the internet, were the ones that petitioned for his return to Disney. They made their case just the same as the other side did, and eventually Disney was convinced. That seems to suggest that the internet of today has a greater ability to backtrack and reconsider (as a whole) than the public of the McCarthy era.

Nothing is really different except the term itself, and the term itself is just a somewhat hypocritical route to accusing the nebulous other side of trying to cancel things that don't need to be cancelled, and of being worthy of being cancelled themselves.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Song of the South being protested and “cancelled” after its release in 1946:

Things can and have gotten “cancelled” multiple times throughout history.

 

[EagleScout610]

Song of the South being protested and “cancelled” after its release in 1946:

View attachment 567453

View attachment 567454
Things can and have gotten “cancelled” multiple times throughout history.

Wow. Never seen these pics before. Great find

 

[TragicMike]

If they do not understand, I would suggest displaying your points more clearly and in a way that can be understand. If people continue to disagree and mock your statements, consider perhaps they do understand and simply see your point of view as silly and frivolous. Then you can ask from them why they feel that way, and a dialogue can take place, rather than a debate.

Certainly, but I think you would agree that the existence of social media has amplified this bad characteristic of men. Trying to suppress and silence opposition is a cowardly tactic that was used by Nazis in Germany under Hitler, Communists in the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin, and by the Cultural Revolutionaries in China under Mao Zedong. To quote Heinrich Heine, "Wherever they burn books, in the end will also burn human beings." Even if these metaphorical books be Splash Mountain or Gina Carano's tweets, obliterating different cultures and beliefs from the public sphere is dangerous.

It is acceptable to disagree with one another and to be offended by certain things (there are certain things that are truly offensive, such as slavery or genocide), but to silence rather than to understand, no matter how offensive one's views may be, is a wicked deed that does nobody any good except for the oppressing class who will inevitably eat their own, just as see in those three examples above.

Not sure why you're only signaling out communist/fascist regimes, "cancel culture" has been a thing in the United States for a long time. Mr. Rodgers also faced backlash for positive black representation fifteen years after the Betty White incident, Ellen had her show taken off the air when she came out, the Dixie Chicks were canceled among Southern US for voicing their displeasure with the Iraq War, the Harry Potter books faced massive backlash from religious groups for promoting witchcraft, etc.

I think Harry Potter gives a nice snapshot of the history of cancel culture. They went from being burned in the early 2000s by religious groups for promoting Satanism, to being burned in the 2020s due to Rowling's stance on trans rights.

Why all of a sudden these freedom-fighting patriots are against "cancel culture" now is the real topic of discussion. Is it a coincidence that it's coinciding with "cancel culture" no longer in favor of White Conservative Christian views? *shrug*

 

[Disney Analyst]

Yes, agreed. This is pretty much exactly what I’ve been arguing. I even said that we call it “canceling” now, but there are other terms for it.

I’ve seen over and over again people talking about “this new generation” being sensitive, wanting to limit free speech, creating “cancel culture,” etc. and how things weren’t always this way. No, this generation did not “create cancel culture.” That’s why I say it doesn’t exist. I mean it doesn’t exist and didn’t come about the way that some people think. It’s not a brand new concept that Millennials and Gen Z’ers have created, which some people seem to believe. Humans have been “canceling” other humans and things since forever. I’d argue the Salem Witch Trials is one of the oldest examples of “cancellations” in this country.

You’re right about celebrities. And even that isn’t new. Wasn’t Paul Reubens “cancelled” for being caught in an adult theater in the early 90s? Charlie Chaplin was “cancelled” after being accused of being a socialist and for his political beliefs in the United States decades ago. The list continues.

So yes, technically “cancel culture” is a thing, but not as some folks believe and it’s not a new thing that should be blamed on Millennials and Gen Z’ers, as it so often is. That’s what I object to. “Cancel culture” will never go away, clearly. People will come up with a different name for it in the future and it will continue.

I personally see it as accountability culture.

People are being held to account for things they used to get away with - but as a society we have stepped up and said enough is enough.

 

[CaptinEO]

View attachment 567477

Not sure why you're only signaling out communist/fascist regimes, "cancel culture" has been a thing in the United States for a long time. Mr. Rodgers also faced backlash for positive black representation fifteen years after the Betty White incident, Ellen had her show taken off the air when she came out, the Dixie Chicks were canceled among Southern US for voicing their displeasure with the Iraq War, the Harry Potter books faced massive backlash from religious groups for promoting witchcraft, etc.

I think Harry Potter gives a nice snapshot of the history of cancel culture. They went from being burned in the early 2000s by religious groups for promoting Satanism, to being burned in the 2020s due to Rowling's stance on trans rights.

Why all of a sudden these freedom-fighting patriots are against "cancel culture" now is the real topic of discussion. Is it a coincidence that it's coinciding with "cancel culture" no longer in favor of White Conservative Christian views? *shrug*

I just want to cancel bad rethemes of rides.

 

[Californian Elitist]

I personally see it as accountability culture.

People are being held to account for things they used to get away with - but as a society we have stepped up and said enough is enough.

I agree, though sometimes the punishment doesn’t always fit the crime.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Perhaps something that's being ignored in this discussion on cancel culture is whether or not the "canceling" is truly justified. Is a "microaggression" worth ending a man's career? If somebody says there are only two genders is that a valid reason to strip them of their right to provide food for their family?

The punishment doesn’t always fit the crime, but again, this is nothing new. Taking the Betty White example, did she really deserve to have her show cancelled simply because she had black guests on one of her segments? No, but such is life, unfortunately.

Something or someone can be cancelled and still be relatively fine. It’s not always a means of the worst possible scenario.

 

[Rich T]

On my park’s Paul Bunyan Log Flume, guests get a big blue ox blasting mist on them from both nostrils. Who needs singing rabbits?

 

[BuzzedPotatoHead89]

Perhaps something that's being ignored in this discussion on cancel culture is whether or not the "canceling" is truly justified. Is a "microaggression" worth ending a man's career? If somebody says there are only two genders is that a valid reason to strip them of their right to provide food for their family?

Another question is whether regulating/silencing this type of speech (vs. addressing it in an honest debate) is really persuasive at all or merely punitive and if it will result in a reverse effect in the long term in terms of radicalizing folks with less dangerous “unpopular”, “unbecoming” or “non-contemporary” opinions.

If it’s the latter then you merely drive the polar extremes further underground into the arms of more extreme members of a given social group. “Blamestorming” individuals in 2021 for culturally insensitive actions for which they (or others they associated with) may have participated in the past is a dangerous game of hoping to change hearts and minds.

Similarly in my view changing something for the sake of change alone to score cheap points is equally disgusting if it’s nothing more than cheap pandering for $$. Whether it’s a closet racist/sexist who hides himself for a job interview, or even a Disney CEO using the cloak of “positive PR” on the backs of a social movement to pull off a lower cost savings to technologically and financially “downgrade” a beloved attraction and insulate himself from criticism.

SOTS issues aside (I have no affection for the film aside from a couple songs), fingers crossed this attraction is truly a worthy replacement of its predecessor.

 

[Disney Analyst]

I agree, though sometimes the punishment doesn’t always fit the crime.

Oh absolutely. And we have to be careful about jumping in on something until we have the facts.

So just as it gets abused, and innocent people have suffered for it, the other side is now using any actual legitimate moments if accountability as examples of the “evil cancel culture”, which is also wrong.

We all need to be more nuanced.

 

[el_super]

I believe there are several reasons for why Cancel Culture is such a prominent discussion in modern political discourse:

1. That which is being canceled have historically been seen as acceptable, if not outright celebrate, such as the Founding Fathers and Splash Mountain. People do not like change from what they already know and like.

Yeah, and this has historically always happened as one generation gives way to the next.

What makes this issue worse is that those accusing great men of sins are often failures of men who have never done a good thing in their lives. A classic case of throwing stones in a glass house.

Not at all.

Splash Mountain certainly appears to be the last of those as nothing on the ride is problematic, but it has a relation to something that is. Would you want to be held accountable for the crimes of your parents?

"Nothing on the ride is problematic" is subjective, and really up to the individual to determine. Disney's already decided it is.

5. Often the motivating factor behind what is being canceled is not driven by market forces, but by corporations. It is one thing for the market to determine that Splash Mountain is too offensive and Disney responds by closing it due to a loss of profits, but it is another for Disney to determine that Splash Mountain is too offensive and the market must accept it. It is the difference between culture shaping a corporation, and a corporation shaping culture. Personally, I don't appreciate the rich elites telling me what I am supposed to like and dislike.

Just the opposite: Disney is making the bet today, that market forces in the next 5 to 10 years will force the closure of the ride and action should be taken now to mitigate their losses. They are responding to social change occurring around them as they have always done. Some could even argue these changes are occurring far too late, and in the case of Splash Mountain specifically, the ride should have never been built.

To be perfectly blunt about it: Disney is only taking action because they know the key to keeping the money rolling in, is to conform to the general social standards of their audience. They know their audience is changing rapidly, and are changing the image of their parks to ensure they don't lose out on a whole generation of children that grow up thinking Disney is too old fashioned and out of touch. There is no chance that Disney would take action, and spend millions of dollars to change their parks, if staying the same, and spending no money, was a viable financial path forward.

The question now is, since Disney has decided to go with the flow and adapt their parks for the newer audiences, where does that leave the old audience? Will they be able to adapt to the changes or will be just have to give up on Disney entirely? That too is sort of a personal decision everyone has to make... eventually.