Disney has a secret army...

[Planogirl]

Yes, that could be possible, but look at it this way.

How would you feel if you posted your honest opinion and someone said that you must be a shill for Disney? Would it upset you that someone was essentially saying that your opinion was so irrational, illogical, and uninformed that if you aren't a shill for Disney then you aren't very smart?

I know how I feel when those accusations have been directed at me.

I think that here we are all likely posting our honest opinions. I've said it before but I believe that the people who post that they had a great experience at an attraction or waited in a long line for something are just as correct as someone who says that they didn't enjoy something or waited in a short line for that same attraction. Experiences can certainly vary and opinions aren't facts just opinions.

You do realize that those who are critical are insulted just as often don't you? It's a shame that anyone should be called names and even more sad if people end up with points or banned because of it.

 

[JanaDee]

Personally, I think to call someone stupid because you don't agree with their viewpoint is just poor behavior and would hope that the majority of the posters can rise above that sort of thing and would also hope that is not something they are teaching to their kids. Not to mention, it is specifically against the rules of the discussion board.

What about "lazy and narrow minded"?

 

[BugsDaddy]

What about "lazy and narrow minded"?

I don't think it is appropriate to call anyone any names based on them having a difference of opinion.

 

[BugsDaddy]

What about "lazy and narrow minded"?

I will also say that there is a difference between criticizing someone's opinion and criticizing the person.

 

[Ambear]

I don't want to debate whether there are opinions on the internet that I find crazy/stupid, because then I might end up drifting into stupid territory myself.

No probs!

 

[Mikie]

What about "lazy and narrow minded"?

You didn't quote me, but I'll pop in to say that the poster who used that phrase was describing the *type of argument* not the person. . . "a lazy and narrow-minded way to make a point" as opposed to saying that "Mikie is lazy and narrow-minded". I suppose a subtle difference that may be best avoided to prevent accusations of name-calling.

I agree that in this discussion:
A: "I love FP+ because I get at least 3 high-priority rides"
B: "FP+ stinks. It is so much worse than the prior system. If you're satisfied with only getting 3 rides for $100, then whatever"
A: "I don't get only 3 rides, I get so much more. 3 guaranteed and I didn't have to get up early or run all around the park"
B: "I never ran, I always got tons of rides, this system definitely limits you. You're definitely getting less for your money now"
A: "That's not true! My family got more done at times that were convenient for us. It really is a better system!"
B: "The PR team is out in full force today!"

Person B ended with a lazy and narrow-minded argument. Whether (understandably) tired of beating a dead horse, or unable to make any further concrete critical statements, they quit offering constructive and useful comments and instead tried to reduce anything A had to say as paid propaganda and therefore useless information. Person B may not be lazy or narrow-minded at all, but the debate tactic they used was. Having a negative opinion about the topic wasn't narrow-minded. Trying to reduce the opposing opinion to useless because it must be paid and disingenuine was.

 

[JanaDee]

You didn't quote me, but I'll pop in to say that the poster who used that phrase was describing the *type of argument* not the person. . . "a lazy and narrow-minded way to make a point" as opposed to saying that "Mikie is lazy and narrow-minded". I suppose a subtle difference that may be best avoided to prevent accusations of name-calling.

I agree that in this discussion:
A: "I love FP+ because I get at least 3 high-priority rides"
B: "FP+ stinks. It is so much worse than the prior system. If you're satisfied with only getting 3 rides for $100, then whatever"
A: "I don't get only 3 rides, I get so much more. 3 guaranteed and I didn't have to get up early or run all around the park"
B: "I never ran, I always got tons of rides, this system definitely limits you. You're definitely getting less for your money now"
A: "That's not true! My family got more done at times that were convenient for us. It really is a better system!"
B: "The PR team is out in full force today!"

Person B ended with a lazy and narrow-minded argument. Whether (understandably) tired of beating a dead horse, or unable to make any further concrete critical statements, they quit offering constructive and useful comments and instead tried to reduce anything A had to say as paid propaganda and therefore useless information. Person B may not be lazy or narrow-minded at all, but the debate tactic they used was. Having a negative opinion about the topic wasn't narrow-minded. Trying to reduce the opposing opinion to useless because it must be paid and disingenuine was.

NM I'm not doing this *again*, however, my last post on this topic is this ~ the rude, condescending, dismissive, snarky, snotty behavior goes both ways.
I hope you have a great Wednesday.

 

[Mikie]

NM I'm not doing this *again*, however, my last post on this topic is this ~ the rude, condescending, dismissive, snarky, snotty behavior goes both ways.
I hope you have a great Wednesday.

Sorry. I should have posted a fake conversation about Butterfish! Or vanilla and chocolate. (seriously) I didn't mean that only people on one side of the discussion do things the wrong way. I was trying to defend that particular poster's use of "lazy and narrow-minded" as a criticism of a type of argument and not an example of name-calling. Because of this thread, the "PR Team" attack is the question at hand, so I'm addressing that particular type of argument, not trying to say that Pixie Dust promoters don't ever go about an argument the wrong way.

Because this thread is about a secret army of Disney promoters, I'm not attempting to weigh who has cornered the market on snark and rudeness. I'm trying to say that just because Disney uses blogs and other social media to promote themselves doesn't mean that it's okay to stop having useful debate and try to shut someone down by declaring them a part of the Disney Machine and therefore, not to be listened to.
You have a great Wednesday as well.

 

[itchin2go]

I don't think it is appropriate to call anyone any names based on them having a difference of opinion.

I have been on both sides of this. I do get my hackles up when it's insinuated that I'm a Disney apologist or drinking the kool-aid. I also get my hackles up when it's insinuated that I'm too negative (a "hater") ... that some people are just never happy, that I'm complaining about first world problems. I *try* not to get worked up about it (work in progress), because these are lazy arguments. Rather than deal with the opinion, they seek to invalidate the person.

Now, regardless of that, I have seen some negative posts that were so negative, that I kind of wondered what else was going on in the person's life, and I have seen some posts so positive that I have literally wondered whether they're being paid by Disney. There are just some things that are such outliers that I have trouble understanding them without assuming that there is some other piece of the puzzle that I'm not privy to. I'm not proud of thinking this way, but sometimes I have trouble coming up with another explanation.

 

[crostorfer]

Sorry. I should have posted a fake conversation about Butterfish! Or vanilla and chocolate. (seriously) I didn't mean that only people on one side of the discussion do things the wrong way. I was trying to defend that particular poster's use of "lazy and narrow-minded" as a criticism of a type of argument and not an example of name-calling. Because of this thread, the "PR Team" attack is the question at hand, so I'm addressing that particular type of argument, not trying to say that Pixie Dust promoters don't ever go about an argument the wrong way.

Because this thread is about a secret army of Disney promoters, I'm not attempting to weigh who has cornered the market on snark and rudeness. I'm trying to say that just because Disney uses blogs and other social media to promote themselves doesn't mean that it's okay to stop having useful debate and try to shut someone down by declaring them a part of the Disney Machine and therefore, not to be listened to.
You have a great Wednesday as well.

Was that a swipe at me?

 

[itchin2go]

Sorry. I should have posted a fake conversation about Butterfish! Or vanilla and chocolate. (seriously) I didn't mean that only people on one side of the discussion do things the wrong way. I was trying to defend that particular poster's use of "lazy and narrow-minded" as a criticism of a type of argument and not an example of name-calling. Because of this thread, the "PR Team" attack is the question at hand, so I'm addressing that particular type of argument, not trying to say that Pixie Dust promoters don't ever go about an argument the wrong way.

Because this thread is about a secret army of Disney promoters, I'm not attempting to weigh who has cornered the market on snark and rudeness. I'm trying to say that just because Disney uses blogs and other social media to promote themselves doesn't mean that it's okay to stop having useful debate and try to shut someone down by declaring them a part of the Disney Machine and therefore, not to be listened to.
You have a great Wednesday as well.

Was that a swipe at me?

And me too. But it's ok if everyone doesn't like my absurd analogy. I did go the extra (absurd) mile to try to find some common ground.

 

[Mikie]

Was that a swipe at me?

It seems I'm not hitting my intended tone. I didn't mean it as a swipe at all. I meant to say that the folks who used fake arguments for illustrative purposes probably did a better job of making their point than I did by using a real DIS argument. It's what I meant to convey with the "(seriously)”. If you posted the vanilla/chocolate conversation, then I'm complimenting you on your wiser choice of methods!

 

[itchin2go]

It seems I'm not hitting my intended tone. I didn't mean it as a swipe at all. I meant to say that the folks who used fake arguments for illustrative purposes probably did a better job of making their point than I did by using a real DIS argument. It's what I meant to convey with the "(seriously)”. If you posted the vanilla/chocolate conversation, then I'm complimenting you on your wiser choice of methods!

Tone is hard on the internet sometimes.

 

[crostorfer]

It seems I'm not hitting my intended tone. I didn't mean it as a swipe at all. I meant to say that the folks who used fake arguments for illustrative purposes probably did a better job of making their point than I did by using a real DIS argument. It's what I meant to convey with the "(seriously)”. If you posted the vanilla/chocolate conversation, then I'm complimenting you on your wiser choice of methods!

Ahhh, understood. Its hard to imply tone on a message board. I think that is how half of our debates start here. We're all reading what is read here with a different inflection in our heads.

 

[Mikie]

And me too.

Same as for crostorfer. . . Maybe today is not a day for me to be posting. Things must not be coming out on the page the way I'm intending in my head.

 

[WebmasterJackie]

Tone is hard on the internet sometimes.

Its hard to imply tone on a message board. I think that is how half of our debates start here. We're all reading what is read here with a different inflection in our heads.

This is truth right here.....

 

[itchin2go]

Same as for crostorfer. . . Maybe today is not a day for me to be posting. Things must not be coming out on the page the way I'm intending in my head.

I just took it the wrong way. We're cool. Post away.

 

[BugsDaddy]

I have been on both sides of this. I do get my hackles up when it's insinuated that I'm a Disney apologist or drinking the kool-aid. I also get my hackles up when it's insinuated that I'm too negative (a "hater") ... that some people are just never happy, that I'm complaining about first world problems. I *try* not to get worked up about it (work in progress), because these are lazy arguments. Rather than deal with the opinion, they seek to invalidate the person.

Now, regardless of that, I have seen some negative posts that were so negative, that I kind of wondered what else was going on in the person's life, and I have seen some posts so positive that I have literally wondered whether they're being paid by Disney. There are just some things that are such outliers that I have trouble understanding them without assuming that there is some other piece of the puzzle that I'm not privy to. I'm not proud of thinking this way, but sometimes I have trouble coming up with another explanation.

Personally, I think that the very negative posts have much more of an impact that the very positive posts. If someone posts that they love FP+, it typically gets some response but not as much as when someone posts that they hate FP+. Hate tends to stoke the fire of debate much more effectively than love does. Sometimes not in a positive direction.

 

[itchin2go]

Personally, I think that the very negative posts have much more of an impact that the very positive posts. If someone posts that they love FP+, it typically gets some response but not as much as when someone posts that they hate FP+. Hate tends to stoke the fire of debate much more effectively than love does. Sometimes not in a positive direction.

Maybe. Complaining is certainly louder than a smile.

However, some of the things I'm thinking of that come under the umbrella of positivity have the actual result of being dismissive or critical. Example: I had a terrible day at MK today. Response: You're in the MK and you're complaining? Any day at Disney is better than the day I'm having.

Or: FP is terrible - it didn't work at all for me. Response: You just didn't do it right.

The responses are certainly pro-Disney, but they're not very magical. They invalidate the opinion of the person who is complaining, and who may actually have a legitimate complaint that doesn't deserve to be dismissed or marginalized.

 

[mom2rtk]

Articles about Disney get hashed out on this board all the time.