Daily Fix Re: Hall of Presidents - No Politics Please

[SCSteve]

Pete is completely correct. Sadly nothing Pete says, or anything we say matters. Di$ney will do whatever (they think) is best for their bottom line. My hope is they agree with Pete...

 

[buzzrelly]

Everyone is saying Disney can't change and not add Trump now because of the precedent, but I think Disney could potentially not add Trump if they chose not to. They still celebrate Christmas even though, to some, it is kind of politically incorrrect to do so.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Everyone is saying Disney can't change and not add Trump now because of the precedent, but I think Disney could potentially not add Trump if they chose not to. They still celebrate Christmas even though, to some, it is kind of politically incorrrect to do so.

They could but on the other thread it was pointed out multiple times (including myself) that the HoP is an attraction about America's history...kind of hard to just up and say..yeah he's not part of history really.

I do get what you are saying about Christmas but at least to me it's not the same thing. MK isn't about celebrating Christmas so while it wouldn't go over well to just stop celebrating it it's not the same thing as saying we are making an active decision to not celebrate America's history now in an attraction about America's history.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Pete is completely correct. Sadly nothing Pete says, or anything we say matters. Di$ney will do whatever (they think) is best for their bottom line. My hope is they agree with Pete...

At least from listening to the podcasts it does seem that Pete has at least some sort of visibility. I believe last week (I think it was last week) where he was talking about sending a tweet out about the bathrooms (ok I think it was the bathrooms or maybe it was just trash on the ground IDK lol) and very quickly the issue was resolved. But on the topic at hand...yeah that is not something I could see Disney making a decision based on someone even as visible as Pete is.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

The only way to keep everyone happy is to reserve the statements for non-controversial presidents.

That would be censorship would it not? To some that is worse than hearing something you don't like; the idea that because of who you are you don't get to speak.

Who decides what is controversial....does anyone remember the huge huge huge thing Clinton did?...he had an affair but didn't admit it at first. But at it's time....

Actually that makes me doing a double take in my mind just thinking how much things have changed since then.

 

[Hannahinwonderland]

That would be censorship would it not? To some that is worse than hearing something you don't like; the idea that because of who you are you don't get to speak.

This is nothing like censorship. We are talking about whether or not audio-animatronics should speak at a theme park attraction. All I'm suggesting is for the sake of making EVERYONE's vacation as nice and stress-free as possible, controversial figures remain silent (again, they are audio-animatronics, not really people). This way, no one is subjected to something that they consider offensive.

 

[TheMaxRebo]

This is nothing like censorship. We are talking about whether or not audio-animatronics should speak at a theme park attraction. All I'm suggesting is for the sake of making EVERYONE's vacation as nice and stress-free as possible, controversial figures remain silent (again, they are audio-animatronics, not really people). This way, no one is subjected to something that they consider offensive.

but how do you decide what is offensive? To some people what Trump says is offensive to others they agree with everything he says ... same thing with Obama - there were reports of people shouting negative things at the Obama animatric in the previous version of the Hall of Presidents

I think since they started the precedent of having the current president speak the least controversial thing to do is keep that going ... if one is concerned they will be offended by the show one can choose not to go into the attraction

 

[TheMaxRebo]

At least from listening to the podcasts it does seem that Pete has at least some sort of visibility. I believe last week (I think it was last week) where he was talking about sending a tweet out about the bathrooms (ok I think it was the bathrooms or maybe it was just trash on the ground IDK lol) and very quickly the issue was resolved. But on the topic at hand...yeah that is not something I could see Disney making a decision based on someone even as visible as Pete is.

I believe Pete tweeted something complaining about the full trashcans in the smoking section in Tomorrowland.

I could be wrong but i think it is an account WDW has set up that anyone can tweet to for reasons like this - not a special thing Pete has access to or that they acted because Pete is, well, Pete

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

This is nothing like censorship. We are talking about whether or not audio-animatronics should speak at a theme park attraction. All I'm suggesting is for the sake of making EVERYONE's vacation as nice and stress-free as possible, controversial figures remain silent (again, they are audio-animatronics, not really people). This way, no one is subjected to something that they consider offensive.

I'm honestly curious here so please don't take it personal but..you don't see choosing someone who isn't controversial (which has already been mentioned changes over time and is different from person to person..seriously look at the outrage over an affair that was denied at first to what we consider nowadays) as censorship?

Dictionary(.com) has the description for censor as:

an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures,radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political,military, or other grounds.

It's an audio-animatronic for sure that isn't really a person so then why does it matter if it is there in the HoP or that it speaks or not?

 

[adisneyaunt]

This is nothing like censorship. We are talking about whether or not audio-animatronics should speak at a theme park attraction. All I'm suggesting is for the sake of making EVERYONE's vacation as nice and stress-free as possible, controversial figures remain silent (again, they are audio-animatronics, not really people). This way, no one is subjected to something that they consider offensive.

??I Could say ...that I find is Offensive that one assumes there will be a "controversial" figure/audiotronic that shouldn't speak because it "May" cause stress.... simply silly imho

I suppose one could bring earplugs or headphones... maybe not Visit that attraction at all.. so as to not "upset" someone sensitive ...to an audiotronic.

 

[TheMaxRebo]

(Edited: removed previous quote..didn't make as much sense here as it did in the other thread lol oops.)

This is just my opinion here for sure but was there this much noise and such for previous presidents speaking in the HoP? I'm not going into the political realm here but it makes you wonder why it seems (and perhaps it is just the voices are louder this time) all of a sudden this is an issue and why there is this "Disney should stay out of politics and not have them speak" train of thought ...maybe it's just people are making the connection in their minds that President speaks=politics, but even if that's your opinion (which is fine even though I don't agree with it) you should have had that opinion back when it was implemented 23 years ago.......not just now.

Social media has really evolved (some might say de-volved) over the past 8 years so I think it is largely just the times that people get their voice out more. There definitely were complaints when Obama was added and I saw some people say they heard people shouting rude things at the Obama animatronic .... so it happened back then - everyone just didn't see it on Twitter and there (likely) wasn't a tread about it here with people talking about it

Also, (and apologies if this goes too far for this thread) that while there are people that definitely disagree with Obama's politics and were unhappy when he was elected I don't think it is the same thing as now where people are offended at the person Donald Trump, not just that they are unhappy they lost the election

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I believe Pete tweeted something complaining about the full trashcans in the smoking section in Tomorrowland.

I could be wrong but i think it is an account WDW has set up that anyone can tweet to for reasons like this - not a special thing Pete has access to or that they acted because Pete is, well, Pete

Yes I do believe you are right it was about the DSA!!

It may have been misunderstood I wasn't implying that Pete had a one-on-one direct line to Disney. And maybe I'm wrong but in my head (which clearly I couldn't remember the details exactly) but more that they are aware of who Pete is...or maybe that's just the impression I got. It seemed that on multiple podcasts or mini-sodes that they were well aware of who he is..though yes at times he would say he got stellar service and they didn't know who he was at least the actual person he was dealing with.

IDK I could be completely wrong here

 

[Hannahinwonderland]

you don't see choosing someone who isn't controversial (which has already been mentioned changes over time and is different from person to person..seriously look at the outrage over an affair that was denied at first to what we consider nowadays) as censorship?

Ok, first of all, I'd like to point out my own statement that you responded to earlier:

I've come to the conclusion that they shouldn't have the current president talk. It's too late now, because the precedent has been set and if suddenly Trump doesn't talk, there will be an outcry that Disney is biased. However, I wish they had never started the practice .

So yeah, I'm saying that Trump has to speak now. I'm not choosing anyone over anyone else. I'm saying that in my OWN VIEW, it would be better if we simply had silent audio-animatronics. However, we don't, so now Disney has to include Trump. They've already set a precedent, I just wish they didn't. You don't have to agree with my opinion that presidents shouldn't speak, many people believe that it's an important part of history to let them speak, that's valid. But censorship is just the wrong word to use.

 

[TheMaxRebo]

Yes I do believe you are right it was about the DSA!!

It may have been misunderstood I wasn't implying that Pete had a one-on-one direct line to Disney. And maybe I'm wrong but in my head (which clearly I couldn't remember the details exactly) but more that they are aware of who Pete is...or maybe that's just the impression I got. It seemed that on multiple podcasts or mini-sodes that they were well aware of who he is..though yes at times he would say he got stellar service and they didn't know who he was at least the actual person he was dealing with.

IDK I could be completely wrong here

I'm am sure there are people at Disney who know who Pete - I didn't get the impression from what he said that it was because he was the one that tweeted it that is why they came so quick - but I could be completely wrong as well

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Social media has really evolved (some might say de-volved) over the past 8 years so I think it is largely just the times that people get their voice out more. There definitely were complaints when Obama was added and I saw some people say they heard people shouting rude things at the Obama animatronic .... so it happened back then - everyone just didn't see it on Twitter and there (likely) wasn't a tread about it here with people talking about it

Also, (and apologies if this goes too far for this thread) that while there are people that definitely disagree with Obama's politics and were unhappy when he was elected I don't think it is the same thing as now where people are offended at the person Donald Trump, not just that they are unhappy they lost the election

Yes that's part of what I brought up in the quote that I edited out. The way we get the news/information now it sooo different than back then I absolutely agree with that.


That's a bit of why I mentioned why now? And like you I'm not trying to go too far either with my next few statements but if deep down it's the premise of it and you would have created a petition (which those aren't new at all) back 23 years ago and would have done so with each new president and said you will not go to the attraction because of the current president at the time every single time (and I'm not even meaning people that go to WDW but everyone in general) that is completely one thing but I don't believe there are too many people out there that are that way. But I also think people well I'm not trying to offend any person here at all and it isn't aimed at any person at all but I think there is at least a good number of people who are in denial as to why they don't want the current president in the HoP much less speak.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I'm am sure there are people at Disney who know who Pete - I didn't get the impression from what he said that it was because he was the one that tweeted it that is why they came so quick - but I could be completely wrong as well

Two wrongs don't make a right....but hey let's say today they do

 

[KingLlama]

It's completely ridiculous to boo anyone or anything at Disney World.....unless it's Duffy, in which case it is perfectly reasonable(and right) to boo mercilessly.

 

[DisneyDad2015]

The only way to keep everyone happy is to reserve the statements for non-controversial presidents.QUOTE]

Just don't know who would determine that, or if it would ever happen. Obama was very controversial, and Bush and Clinton were both as well. Trump is, and Hillary would have been if she had won. Just stick with the precedent that has been set and let it be.

 

[Hannahinwonderland]

Can everyone just stop quoting my statements? No one bothers to read the whole post here. Conversing with people who keep quoting me out of context is getting a bit frustrating.

 

[TheMaxRebo]

Yes that's part of what I brought up in the quote that I edited out. The way we get the news/information now it sooo different than back then I absolutely agree with that.


That's a bit of why I mentioned why now? And like you I'm not trying to go too far either with my next few statements but if deep down it's the premise of it and you would have created a petition (which those aren't new at all) back 23 years ago and would have done so with each new president and said you will not go to the attraction because of the current president at the time every single time (and I'm not even meaning people that go to WDW but everyone in general) that is completely one thing but I don't believe there are too many people out there that are that way. But I also think people well I'm not trying to offend any person here at all and it isn't aimed at any person at all but I think there is at least a good number of people who are in denial as to why they don't want the current president in the HoP much less speak.

I can agree there is some truth to that - and one reason why I think the least offensive thing is to keep things as they have been ... even though if we are starting from a clean slate I bet a lot of people would vote (no pun intended) to not have him talk

The other thing about how times have changed is that as a society/country we are more divided. You always had people on the extremes but there was more overlap (and you would have liberal republicans and conservative democrats, etc.) - so when you too the average of each group they weren't that far apart

This is a chart I like (and it is from a few years ago so it has probably widened even more) but does show how we are more divided than we were in 1994 (so close to the 23 years ago you mentioned). Obviously just one example - but it does seem, even anecdotally, to fit what you see on social media where there is no middle ground to conversations