Why defend Disney

[Kimberly9701]

Prices go up. Yup. But we all know that the main reason people are complaining is because of the cuts that are being made WITH the price increases. And I too know people that have gone recently. And they had complaints. That were directly related to the cuts. The difference is, since they're not on these boards, they didn't know the why behind the complaints. (Ex. long wait times while seeing the ride running at only half capacity. They knew it sucked. They didn't know it was due to budget/staffing cuts).

I guess I just don't remember a time when Disney ever had short lines. Not when I was a kid, and not when I was an adult. Probably my friends/family don't remember either. Besides those who go in January (and I'm not willing to go then).

That, and most of us have theme park passes here- waits are typically 30-90 minutes. And food is outrageously priced- higher than Disney. Admission is not though, and we aren't flying and paying obnoxious resort prices when go to Kings Island, but the waits for rides- almost always long.

 

[Kimberly9701]

Try this: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B002ZG53R2/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_api_Yp-lxbA8AD23T

Always looked fun to make.

Ha ha I've never seen those! I've retired the fruit cutters and not buying any more!!!.. They only make an appearance on special occasions. Sandwich cutters come out twice per week.lol

 

[Maistre Gracey]

I still do not fully grasp the use of the word apologist. If I like something that isn't apologizing for it because someone else doesn't (heck, I like Stitch) but, I honestly do not know why it is considered apologizing for something that I have no control over. The closest I could come to apologizing is to say... gee, I'm sorry you don't like it, but, I see nothing wrong with it. Sorry!

It's simply some will defend anything Disney does, and most often makes some lame excuse.

I've been there... Anyone remember years ago with the cars?? I was a car 1 guy. Now... Probably car 4.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

It's simply some will defend anything Disney does, and most often makes some lame excuse.

I've been there... Anyone remember years ago with the cars?? I was a car 1 guy. Now... Probably car 4.

Shucks... The "cars" were in the old news & rumors forum.
I doubt many here will remember, but maybe...???

 

[Davey Jones II]

Any business was has a right to do business as they please.

And we have a right to give them hell when they shortchange us.

 

[Davey Jones II]

Maybe we're reading different posts. There is not one single person on this board that thinks they're going to change Disney and "kick it back into the 50s". And most of them are not looking for flaws - they're just outright noticing them because to most of the repeat visitors, they're glaringly obvious. Nor, in the past 6 months of change, have many (if any) people been wrong about their predictions. Most of the arguing in my opinion, seems to come from the people who refuse to admit that Disney does anything wrong.

ETA: And for the record, I agree with the OP in that the negative talk does get a bit depressing. In fact, I wish admins could create a new board just for the "venting", because I don't think it's helpful for newcomers, and I do see how it could negatively influence your trip. And I for one love Disney and hope my next trip is magical. But on the flip side, I'm under no illusions about Disney. And right now - they're either in serious trouble due to Shanghai (and other issues), or they've turned into one money-hungry, greedy giant. Neither of which bodes well.

In reference to the bolded part...

I think the most likely answer is c) All of the above.

 

[Davey Jones II]

Prices go up. Yup. But we all know that the main reason people are complaining is because of the cuts that are being made WITH the price increases. And I too know people that have gone recently. And they had complaints. That were directly related to the cuts. The difference is, since they're not on these boards, they didn't know the why behind the complaints. (Ex. long wait times while seeing the ride running at only half capacity. They knew it sucked. They didn't know it was due to budget/staffing cuts).

Exactly. Price increases are one thing, but when Disney simultaneously makes cuts that increase wait times, it's just adding injury to insult to injury. Disney has all the money, and still tries to have their cake and eat it, too. It's frankly disgusting. I actually find myself glad that I have no Disney trip planned this year. And any future visits, if they happen in the next couple years, will probably be much shorter than in the past. We'll hit the highlights in a handful of days, then move on to the competition. Is that really what Disney wants -- to send us, gift wrapped, onto the competition's doorstep??

 

[cobright]

I sure due, I was born with a thick VIKING SKIN. As I said was referring to the common definition and use.

While I think the way Lothlorian used the two terms in inaccurate and unfair, the problem is that the "common" definition of a few key terms are not at all what you think them to be. In particular, "apologist" and "realist".

Apologist , what ever the dictionary definition is, in normal every day use means to protect someone or something that is wrong.

An apologist is someone who is willing to offer an argument for or defense of some thing within the context of a public discussion. C.S. Lewis was a very vocal apologist for Christianity at a time when his religion was getting some very vocal criticisms. It is not someone who defends something even when they know it is wrong or for the sake of argument alone. An apologist may argue a point they do not personally hold if doing so raises the quality of all of the arguments on the subject, meaning they would not like any side (even one they agree with) to win a debate simply because no one on the other side was comfortable making their case. In any case, the term, on its own is not, nor ever has been a pejorative.

I would propose that apologist cannot have a "common" definition, other than its correct one, simply because it is a very uncommonly used word. If one in a place where this word is being used a lot one should expect it to be used correctly.

calling some one realist, meaning to say only they know what is real and correct and the other peoples views are wrong.

Again, this is simply not what a realist believes. The opposite of a realist is not a fictionist, it is not someone who believes in things that are not real. The opposite of a realist is an idealist and neither term refers to the correctness or accuracy of their beliefs. They refer to the philosophy by which a person judges things, sets goals, and makes decisions. A realist does so based on what is currently known and the most likely outcome of unresolved issues. If a coin flips heads 100 times in a row, the realist bets it will flip heads for the 101st toss. Throughout history, realists have actually been wrong about important events far more often than right but it is still a much safer path. In contrast idealists suffer far more disappointment because their expectations are more often set by what is possible and desirable than what is likely.

As to repect them when I tell them I find it insulting I expect it not to continue to be used....sadly some just ignore I was being offended.

Asking that someone stop using a word correctly because your incorrect understanding of it results in you being insulted is not reasonable. We live in a society. I don't tell the black kid at the coffee shop to stop calling me his n-word. I find the term abhorrent in most cases (including any case where I personally say it) but he's using it correctly and it does me no harm.

 

[Kimberly9701]

Maybe we're reading different posts. There is not one single person on this board that thinks they're going to change Disney and "kick it back into the 50s". And most of them are not looking for flaws - they're just outright noticing them because to most of the repeat visitors, they're glaringly obvious. Nor, in the past 6 months of change, have many (if any) people been wrong about their predictions. Most of the arguing in my opinion, seems to come from the people who refuse to admit that Disney does anything wrong.

ETA: And for the record, I agree with the OP in that the negative talk does get a bit depressing. In fact, I wish admins could create a new board just for the "venting", because I don't think it's helpful for newcomers, and I do see how it could negatively influence your trip. And I for one love Disney and hope my next trip is magical. But on the flip side, I'm under no illusions about Disney. And right now - they're either in serious trouble due to Shanghai (and other issues), or they've turned into one money-hungry, greedy giant. Neither of which bodes well.

I think this is where us "Disney Apologists" get confused. WDW, and the Disney corp have always been money-hungry, that is how they came to be such a dominating force with amazing profits. They have an absolutely brilliant business model. They take our money, loads of it, and we hand it over to gain some elusive 'magic'. Regardless of if it's their parks, merchandise, cruise line, store items, etc etc. Disney has never been vastly affordable to all. But some people act like they used to be.

 

[Kimberly9701]

Exactly. Price increases are one thing, but when Disney simultaneously makes cuts that increase wait times, it's just adding injury to insult to injury. Disney has all the money, and still tries to have their cake and eat it, too. It's frankly disgusting. I actually find myself glad that I have no Disney trip planned this year. And any future visits, if they happen in the next couple years, will probably be much shorter than in the past. We'll hit the highlights in a handful of days, then move on to the competition. Is that really what Disney wants -- to send us, gift wrapped, onto the competition's doorstep??

They are reporting record profits, so I don't think they are in danger of that quite yet.

 

[Planogirl]

I think this is where us "Disney Apologists" get confused. WDW, and the Disney corp have always been money-hungry, that is how they came to be such a dominating force with amazing profits. They have an absolutely brilliant business model. They take our money, loads of it, and we hand it over to gain some elusive 'magic'. Regardless of if it's their parks, merchandise, cruise line, store items, etc etc. Disney has never been vastly affordable to all. I think that's where most of us get confused, bc some people act like they used to be.

I've been going for a long time and they did used to be more affordable.

 

[whiporee]

I've been going for a long time and they did used to be more affordable.

Yeah, but so was every form of entertainment. The first time I saw jimmy Buffett tickets were GA and 12 bucks. The concert I just tried for tickets for the back rows started at $90. Comic books were 30 cents and now they're 3.95.

Discretionary spending during times when it's spent tends to outpace almost everything.

 

[whiporee]

While I think the way Lothlorian used the two terms in inaccurate and unfair, the problem is that the "common" definition of a few key terms are not at all what you think them to be. In particular, "apologist" and "realist".



An apologist is someone who is willing to offer an argument for or defense of some thing within the context of a public discussion. C.S. Lewis was a very vocal apologist for Christianity at a time when his religion was getting some very vocal criticisms. It is not someone who defends something even when they know it is wrong or for the sake of argument alone. An apologist may argue a point they do not personally hold if doing so raises the quality of all of the arguments on the subject, meaning they would not like any side (even one they agree with) to win a debate simply because no one on the other side was comfortable making their case. In any case, the term, on its own is not, nor ever has been a pejorative.

I would propose that apologist cannot have a "common" definition, other than its correct one, simply because it is a very uncommonly used word. If one in a place where this word is being used a lot one should expect it to be used correctly.



Again, this is simply not what a realist believes. The opposite of a realist is not a fictionist, it is not someone who believes in things that are not real. The opposite of a realist is an idealist and neither term refers to the correctness or accuracy of their beliefs. They refer to the philosophy by which a person judges things, sets goals, and makes decisions. A realist does so based on what is currently known and the most likely outcome of unresolved issues. If a coin flips heads 100 times in a row, the realist bets it will flip heads for the 101st toss. Throughout history, realists have actually been wrong about important events far more often than right but it is still a much safer path. In contrast idealists suffer far more disappointment because their expectations are more often set by what is possible and desirable than what is likely.



Asking that someone stop using a word correctly because your incorrect understanding of it results in you being insulted is not reasonable. We live in a society. I don't tell the black kid at the coffee shop to stop calling me his n-word. I find the term abhorrent in most cases (including any case where I personally say it) but he's using it correctly and it does me no harm.

While you might be correct from a lingual and semantic perspective, apologist has nearly universal negative connotations. It's used in reference to someone who makes excuses for someone else, usually beyond common sense.

If you are calling someone an apologist, you're making not only a comment about their position, but also their underlying motivation. And it's almost always an insult.

While I understand your point, context has meaning, too. The choice of that word has innotations beyond Websters, and it's dishonest to pretend that it doesn't.

 

[Kimberly9701]

Saying somebody is an apologist is not name calling or an insult. I also did not say anybody was wrong.

a·pol·o·gist
əˈpäləjəst/
noun
noun: apologist; plural noun: apologists
a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial.
"an enthusiastic apologist for fascism in the 1920s"
synonyms: defender, supporter, upholder, advocate, proponent, exponent, propagandist, champion, campaigner;
informalcheerleader
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the "universal negative connotations" are exampled above. I don't think propagandist has ever been used in a positive light. And the dictionary uses an example of "apologist" with fascism.

Maybe everyone missed that part in the quote?


Back to the subject at hand, I think all entertainment and travel has gone way up over the past few years. Concerts, flights, resorts, theme parks etc

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

While I think the way Lothlorian used the two terms in inaccurate and unfair, the problem is that the "common" definition of a few key terms are not at all what you think them to be. In particular, "apologist" and "realist".



An apologist is someone who is willing to offer an argument for or defense of some thing within the context of a public discussion. C.S. Lewis was a very vocal apologist for Christianity at a time when his religion was getting some very vocal criticisms. It is not someone who defends something even when they know it is wrong or for the sake of argument alone. An apologist may argue a point they do not personally hold if doing so raises the quality of all of the arguments on the subject, meaning they would not like any side (even one they agree with) to win a debate simply because no one on the other side was comfortable making their case. In any case, the term, on its own is not, nor ever has been a pejorative.

I would propose that apologist cannot have a "common" definition, other than its correct one, simply because it is a very uncommonly used word. If one in a place where this word is being used a lot one should expect it to be used correctly.



Again, this is simply not what a realist believes. The opposite of a realist is not a fictionist, it is not someone who believes in things that are not real. The opposite of a realist is an idealist and neither term refers to the correctness or accuracy of their beliefs. They refer to the philosophy by which a person judges things, sets goals, and makes decisions. A realist does so based on what is currently known and the most likely outcome of unresolved issues. If a coin flips heads 100 times in a row, the realist bets it will flip heads for the 101st toss. Throughout history, realists have actually been wrong about important events far more often than right but it is still a much safer path. In contrast idealists suffer far more disappointment because their expectations are more often set by what is possible and desirable than what is likely.



Asking that someone stop using a word correctly because your incorrect understanding of it results in you being insulted is not reasonable. We live in a society. I don't tell the black kid at the coffee shop to stop calling me his n-word. I find the term abhorrent in most cases (including any case where I personally say it) but he's using it correctly and it does me no harm.

Sorry we disagree totally. Any one can take a dictionary and find a definition that is antiqued and no longer fact.

Using the terms here implies that Disney is doing something incorrectly or wrong. Obviously that is the whole point of the discussion. I not apologizing for Disney. Sometimes I support Disney , sometimes I do not, but I am not apologizing for anything. Thereby making the use of the word incorrect.

While using realist implies your position is the real one and everyone is wrong.

Every day common usage is what counts and if I find being called a word that I know is wrong and find it offensive is not at all unreasonable. For someone to continue to use it is rude.

AKK

 

[TheLittles]

In a Moms group I belong to last week one of the moms was telling everyone about her recent trip to WDW. She had never been before. Most of the women in the room had never been either. She proceeded to tell them how miserable of a time it was and it definitely was not worth the money and the crowds were insane. (She went her very first time during Spring Break). All of the Moms were listening. I started then saying that I believed it was the time that she went because I know many people who love it. (She proceeded to roll her eyes lol) and shake her head as if to say "nope, its just a crap place" I have no idea why but I just had the feeling like I had to defend Disney. I felt like she was talking smack about one of my family members haha

 

[cobright]

Exactly. Price increases are one thing, but when Disney simultaneously makes cuts that increase wait times, it's just adding injury to insult to injury. Disney has all the money, and still tries to have their cake and eat it, too. It's frankly disgusting. I actually find myself glad that I have no Disney trip planned this year. And any future visits, if they happen in the next couple years, will probably be much shorter than in the past. We'll hit the highlights in a handful of days, then move on to the competition. Is that really what Disney wants -- to send us, gift wrapped, onto the competition's doorstep??

3 things:
Just looking at WDW parks...

1. I'm not convinced seasonally adjusted wait times are significantly higher now than they were 8+ years ago (just a convenient frame of reference for me as I started making regular trips to WDW about 8 years ago). Using FP+, they are much lower than when I went as a kid in 1983.
2. The extent to which any of the changes WDW has made recently affects wait times is a mote in the eye compared to the market forces of increased demand. Simply put, far more people are booking WDW vacations now than they were 10 and 20 and 30 years ago. It may not feel like it to some because the recent recession has persisted and sort of become the new reality for so many but as a whole now, as before the recession there is more discressionary spending being paid out on things like vacations than ever before. This trend extends globally. Compared to the early 80s, far more people are able to take WDW vacations now.
3. Last item, it coat tails on the previous one and answers your parting question. Does Disney want to send you to the competition? ... Yes. In a sense. They want happy customers. So if they can fill their parks with people happy to pay $100/person/day for tickets and happy to pay another $50/person/day for a dining plan, and happy to pay for extra experiences like MNSSHP they would prefer to do that even if that means displacing customers who will not be happy to do the same thing. To be fair, Disney has done an amazing amount of market segmentation in order to preserve the traditional Magic Kingdom experience and make it available to such a broad spectrum of income levels. We set up our friends with a 4 night vacation for 3 on property with DDP for Just over $2100, well within their budget and much less than their previous years trip to the grand canyon. At the same time, my family will be in the park and in the resort spending more and staying longer all the while within our own personal comfort zones for vacation spending.

As a side note: I can't figure out what is WDW's local competition. Sea World? Maybe Universal Studios but only if you put rides from the 90s on par with Magic Kingdom's rides ... and forget that the other three WDW parks exist; and sorry, the Men In Black ride is no Peter Pan's Flight. But let's be honest, Universal Studios is the 8th most popular theme park ... so it's not even WDW's competition's competition. The only thing I can come up with that competes against WDW is the Space Center.

 

[goofyernmost]

I've been going for a long time and they did used to be more affordable.

Not really. Everything is relative. It seemed affordable by today's cost standard, but, when they opened and minimum wage was around 90 cents an hour, it wasn't any easier to put money aside to make a trip to a theme park then it is now. It is all the same. When I was young I always wanted to own a Cadillac or a Lincoln Town Car... Guess what, I was almost 60 years old before I could comfortably afford one. Why are they so greedy. I wanted one and they wouldn't bring the price down so I could get one. Talk about money grubbing. They didn't owe me a Town Car and Disney doesn't owe anyone a visit to the parks. If we can afford it, we can go. Otherwise, we find something else to do that costs less. That, btw, is what being a realist means. Accepting the situations that we have no control of as they are, not, what we would like them to be.

 

[MinnieSweetheart]

In a Moms group I belong to last week one of the moms was telling everyone about her recent trip to WDW. She had never been before. Most of the women in the room had never been either. She proceeded to tell them how miserable of a time it was and it definitely was not worth the money and the crowds were insane. (She went her very first time during Spring Break). All of the Moms were listening. I started then saying that I believed it was the time that she went because I know many people who love it. (She proceeded to roll her eyes lol) and shake her head as if to say "nope, its just a crap place" I have no idea why but I just had the feeling like I had to defend Disney. I felt like she was talking smack about one of my family members haha

I WOULD feel a bit offended in that circumstance bc I assume most of the moms know y'all like to go often. So it seems like a direct attack on you.

Like if everyone knew my favorite band and one of the moms said "I saw XYZs concert and they just suck. It was an awful concert." It feels like a criticism of your taste.

 

[KnittingMom]

This idea came up on a thread that's now locked, but I thought it might make interesting conversation.

A couple of people wondered why someone (I suppose me, but others) defend Disney rather vehemently in certain threads. Some even suggested there are plants here; WDW defending its positions on message boards. While I doubt that is true (and if it were, I'd hope they do a better job than I do), it did raise a question in my mind, so I thought I'd answer.

I defend Disney on things I agree with because I don't want the opposite narrative to become fact. People make assumptions about Disney here that sometimes are made in frustration, and sometimes made as easiest answer. I was just in a dust up about June hours, but the same thing could be said about EMM or FP+ or DAH or Wishes parties, that WDW is just working from a maximizing profit standpoint. And while that may be true, it may not be. Any --of not all -- could be considered to be beneficial to some customers. But if you let the narrative go unchallenged, if you don't show another side --and you don't swing back as hard -- then then the narrative that is most vocal becomes fact.

For example, I've seen many times here that rides are working at reduced capacity -- making lines are longer -- as a direct result of staffing cuts. Repeating it as fact has become commonplace. And here's something else I found interesting: I couldn't find anything about it at the Orlando Sentinel about layoffs. I saw stuff on Kenny the Pirate and other blogs, but even they quoted "inside sources" for their information. But The Sentinel or Orlando Business Journal ought to be all over those things. Disney employs 62,000 people in Orlando; if there were big reductions in tat workforce it would be big news. It's not. The last major layoff was 1400 out of 62,000 employees seven years ago. Disney is a publicly traded company; i'm pretty sure stuff like that is promoted and published because reducing costs invariably helps stock prices. But I couldn't find anything beyond the IT layoffs after FP+ and MDE after were rolled out. So i don't know whether the story is true or not; all i know is that it gets repeated around here a lot. And now it's stated as fact when it might not be. The same thing with rides not running at capacity, the same thing with Shanghai overruns being passed down. I know it's said a lot, I just don't know whether it's true.

And it shouldn't matter, because most of the long-time posters here have already formed their opinions on things and they are unlikely to change. But there are other people -- people who find the site when they are looking for Disney ideas, or they are planning a trip. And if all they hear is how badly WDW sucks, how it's crowded all the time, how FP+ makes it impossible to have a good time, how WDW is just about taking as much money as they can however they can, those folks might reconsider what might turn out to be a great vacation. Or, if they are going to reconsider, they ought to know there are two sides to whatever story might be circulating.

I think that's only fair because none of us -- NONE --knows the real stories behind Disney's decisions. If there are less damning possibilities for why things happen -- or if there are potential benefits to things that some consider detrimental -- then they ought to be pointed out, too.

Both my cousin and nephew work for Disney; she in Orlando and he in a Disney store in New York. Her job is not been cut back, and his boss is persuading him to try for a better paying job in Orlando that he knows is open.