Too many people here are incapable of separating the Cosby case from the separate but related issue of removal of
subjectively "offensive" symbols.
I never once defended Cosby (in fact said I understood why Disney was removing his bust). But that didn't stop a number of people here like Waltdizzy and Chipndale from erroneously equating my concerns over the increasingly broadening attacks on items under the generic banner of "they are deeply offensive to X-Y -Z" with being a defense of Cosby.
But now let me turn the tables back on them. Since they apparently equate all claims of "offense" as being equally justified, that must mean they fully agree with the people who want to remove the Jefferson Memorial and rename Washington D.C. because that structure and name offend some because their namesakes owned slaves.
http://pjmedia.com/blog/video-d-c-residents-say-take-down-jefferson-memorial-rename-washington-d-c/
...not sure how else to understand your post, but calling this the "slippery slope" (as you referenced in your second post) definitely implies something.
Edit: To clarify, since my initial post is vague.
The definition of "slippery slope":
an idea or course of action which will lead to something unacceptable, wrong, or disastrous.
Your post seems to imply that removing the bust of a modern-day sexual abuser will lead to what you determine is "something unacceptable, wrong, or disastrous." (In your words, Disney removing things that "offend" people.) When people say "slippery slope" there's usually a strong connotation that the speaker thinks the original action shouldn't be done. You don't generally call an action that seems appropriate/the right thing to do a "slippery slope."
Although maybe you didn't mean it that way, the way you phrased things implied that removing the bust was a negative action by the above logic. The parentheses around offends also seems to mean that the people who are offended don't have the right to be so. Using it in relation to the Cosby implies negativity, even if you didn't mean it that way.
Again, I'm not trying to start the ~DrAmA~ but what bothers me about the whole "yeah he was a rapist but that doesn't mean his acting shouldn't be rewarded" is that it's not giving rape the proper reverence it deserves. Like, we wouldn't say that the same thing about murder, would we? No one ever says, "Yeah, John Wilkes Booth shot Abraham Lincoln but he was such a good actor before. Let's give him a place in our Hall of Fame."
Even if you want to make the argument that murder is a bigger deal then rape - which yes, obviously, being killed is the worst possible outcome that can happen to you in life - would we say the same thing if Cosby tortured people in his basement? Would we say, "Well, yeah, he hurt people and emotionally scarred them in his basement, but he was a great actor and nothing can change that!" ...especially since rape has emotional consquences for some time? What if he was a child predator? Would we feel the same way, then?
Ah. I realize that this is getting overly political for a Disney board, but I had to speak my piece.
It's probably time for me to back out and go join in on less controversial discussions. Like the revamp of HS and whether Avatarland is a good idea or not.
