DVDizzy Forum

I can respect that everyone has an opinion & their opinion is based on fact. I also respect everyone's wishes to believe those facts from any perspective they choose. I myself have & always will believe that people are people are people. As an associate in the electronics department, I look forward to each day of meeting new people & learning bits & pieces of what makes them unique. I also share a bit of myself too. The end result is always the same, smiles & laughter from myself & the customer as I tell them "Have a great day!".

slave2moonlight wrote:[...] so you may want to get off your anti-white soap-box now, especially since it looks silly when a white person does it.

It's phrases like this that always makes me cringe. Why does i look silly when a white person acknowledges that other white people have oppressed and are still oppressing all kinds of minorities all over the world? Adding words like "anti-white soap-box" shows to me you're not taking the subject very seriously and you would rather ridicule it by throwing in such a term than actually discuss it.

Obviously I'm aware of the fact that yes, not all white people did it; and yes, white people have been slaves too (just think of the white Christian slaves in northern Africa); and yes, black people have sold other black people as slaves... But really, can we please keep focussed on the *big* picture here? When you take a look at the grand scheme of things, those are merely 'details' in the far greater story of white men's oppression of ethnic and religious minorities.

However, what you failed to notice is that my most important point was that a fight over who suffered the most isn't productive at all. Yes, I'm very well aware of the suffering of poor white people. We don't have to fight over who had or has it the worst. What we must do is unite and work for a better future.

I'm sorry, I watched the inauguration all day and that brings out this kind of overblown rhetoric in me...

Goliath wrote: It's phrases like this that always makes me cringe. Why does i look silly when a white person acknowledges that other white people have oppressed and are still oppressing all kinds of minorities all over the world? Adding words like "anti-white soap-box" shows to me you're not taking the subject very seriously and you would rather ridicule it by throwing in such a term than actually discuss it.

It's hard to take a person's arguments seriously when they are arguing racism from a racist standpoint. In your effort to appear supportive of minorities you only display a clear ignorance of history and hatred for your own race. Defending minorities by being racist towards majorities does not serve anyone and only harms your own cause.

Goliath wrote: Obviously I'm aware of the fact that yes, not all white people did it; and yes, white people have been slaves too (just think of the white Christian slaves in northern Africa); and yes, black people have sold other black people as slaves... But really, can we please keep focussed on the *big* picture here? When you take a look at the grand scheme of things, those are merely 'details' in the far greater story of white men's oppression of ethnic and religious minorities.

Wow, that was the most ridiculous argument you've produced yet. You have accused me of ignoring your facts, which I never did, and now you are asking me to allow you to ignore mine... Jeez, you should quit while you're behind. And, yet again you bring up this "Not all white people did it" thing, when the point is not that a few didn't do it, it is rather that a few did, and yet you want to hold it against ALL white people. Racism, pure and simple.

Goliath wrote: However, what you failed to notice is that my most important point was that a fight over who suffered the most isn't productive at all. Yes, I'm very well aware of the suffering of poor white people. We don't have to fight over who had or has it the worst. What we must do is unite and work for a better future.

I'm sorry, I watched the inauguration all day and that brings out this kind of overblown rhetoric in me...

Okay, that was never your stance before, but if you want to take it now, that's fine with me. If you want me to pretend that all your previous posts were NOT about who suffered more and so on, so be it. Welcome to our side of the argument, but don't expect this kind of forgiveness twice.

slave2moonlight wrote:It's hard to take a person's arguments seriously when they are arguing racism from a racist standpoint. In your effort to appear supportive of minorities you only display a clear ignorance of history and hatred for your own race.

Here's another really stupid and ignorant remark: "hate for your own race". As soon as you criticize your own race for doing things that are wrong, people will say: "you just hate your own race". Never mind that it doesn't make any sense; it just provides an excuse not to talk about the factual criticism.

slave2moonlight wrote:Defending minorities by being racist towards majorities does not serve anyone and only harms your own cause.

'Affirmative action' is not being racist and if you believe it is, you don't know what it is. Just as drfsupercenter doesn't know what it is, because it also includes white people from poor backgrounds.

slave2moonlight wrote:Wow, that was the most ridiculous argument you've produced yet.

That fades in comparison to the drivel you have written.

slave2moonlight wrote:You have accused me of ignoring your facts, which I never did, and now you are asking me to allow you to ignore mine... Jeez, you should quit while you're behind. And, yet again you bring up this "Not all white people did it" thing, when the point is not that a few didn't do it, it is rather that a few did, and yet you want to hold it against ALL white people. Racism, pure and simple.

No, you deliberatly misrepresent what I wrote. I wrote that IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS (I thought I'd write it in capitals this time, since you have a hard time understanding), your arguments about oppression of white people pales in comparison of the oppression of blacks/asians/native americans by white people.

And you can write over and over again that I can't blame all white people for it, because only afew did it, but that's not true. Not true at all. Because the practice of oppressing those minorities came forth from a mindset that was shared by 99% of white people. Even if they never did the oppression themselves, they condoned it, thought it was okay, voted for people who did the oppression etc.

That's not about nonsense like 'hating your own race', that's how it was in those days.

slave2moonlight wrote: Okay, that was never your stance before, but if you want to take it now, that's fine with me. If you want me to pretend that all your previous posts were NOT about who suffered more and so on, so be it. Welcome to our side of the argument, but don't expect this kind of forgiveness twice.

Excuse me? Forgiveness? I didn't ask for, nor do I want any 'forgiveness'. How arrogant can you be?

Oh, and yes, I DID take that stance, but as usual, you weren't paying attention:

Goliath on Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:50 pm wrote:Having said this, I just wanted to add there's no reason to fight among each other. Poor white people shouldn't be fighting with poor black people (they're not "underpriviliged", they're poor, okay, stop with the euphemism that's supposed to make it sound better) about whom gets to go into college. They should unite against the people who are really holding them back: the richest 1% of the people who have all the power. Those people want us to to continue the in-fighting. Racism is the poor fighting the poor while the rich laugh.

Goliath wrote: Here's another really stupid and ignorant remark: "hate for your own race". As soon as you criticize your own rae for doing things that are wrong, people will say: "you just hate your own race". Never mind that it doesn't make any sense; it just provides an excuse not to talk about the factual criticism.

Again, you are pinning the sins of a few on an entire race. You say it yourself: "As soon as you criticize your own race for doing things that are wrong..." And criticizing is putting it mildly.

Goliath wrote:

slave2moonlight wrote:Defending minorities by being racist towards majorities does not serve anyone and only harms your own cause.

'Affirmative action' is not being racist and if you believe it is, you don't know what it is. Just as drfsupercenter doesn't know what it is, because it also includes white people from poor backgrounds.

Ah, you're dragging Affirmative Action into this again when that wasn't even what we were talking about. I've stated time and time again that I was not discussing Affirmative Action. What I was referring to was your anti-white statements, not Affirmative Action. You're trying to shift focus yet again. Of course, if you think it sounds like I was talking about Affirmative Action, well... I guess that says something about Affirmative Action. Interesting...

Goliath wrote:

slave2moonlight wrote:Wow, that was the most ridiculous argument you've produced yet.

That fades in comparison to the drivel you have written.

Clever. Unsupportable, but easy.

Goliath wrote:
No, you deliberatly misrepresent what I wrote. I wrote that IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS (I thought I'd write it in capitals this time, since you have a hard time understanding), your arguments about oppression of white people pales in comparison of the oppression of blacks/asians/native americans by white people.

Again, you contradict yourself. You said a while ago that it wasn't about who suffered more (even though I was never arguing that whites suffered "more", just that they have had some experience with suffering too, as you repeatedly and incorrectly stated that being white meant being privileged). And you keep flip flopping on the issues. Your version of the "grand scheme of things" seems to translate to ignoring any aspects of white suffering and only include suffering of other races because it serves your single-sided argument to do so.

Goliath wrote:
And you can write over and over again that I can't blame all white people for it, because only afew did it, but that's not true. Not true at all. Because the practice of oppressing those minorities came forth from a mindset that was shared by 99% of white people. Even if they never did the oppression themselves, they condoned it, thought it was okay, voted for people who did the oppression etc.

Sorry, but that's not historically accurate and is yet another example of racist assumption. You'd have a heck of a time proving that 99% thing, believe me. The majority of people never had a say or vote on anything.

Goliath wrote:
Excuse me? Forgiveness? I didn't ask for, nor do I want any 'forgiveness'. How arrogant can you be?

Going back to the OTHER side now? What was all that peace, love, and understanding junk? I guess it really was just temporary side effects of watching the inauguration.

Goliath wrote: Oh, and yes, I DID take that stance, but as usual, you weren't paying attention:

Goliath on Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:50 pm wrote:Having said this, I just wanted to add there's no reason to fight among each other. Poor white people shouldn't be fighting with poor black people (they're not "underpriviliged", they're poor, okay, stop with the euphemism that's supposed to make it sound better) about whom gets to go into college. They should unite against the people who are really holding them back: the richest 1% of the people who have all the power. Those people want us to to continue the in-fighting. Racism is the poor fighting the poor while the rich laugh.

Ah, okay, I see. I notice you went back and added that later. The magic of editing. Well, we can all go back and edit our posts to make ourselves seem nicer, like cutting out offensive stuff from a Disney film. That's the whole reason it's important to preserve films as they originally were. It's history and if we lose it, we forget the truth.

Schooling you is getting boring, Goliath.

Last post I will dedicate to this subject

slave2moonlight wrote:[Again, you are pinning the sins of a few on an entire race. You say it yourself: "As soon as you criticize your own race for doing things that are wrong..." And criticizing is putting it mildly.

Like I already explained to you, it's not the sins of "a few", because it came forth from a mindset shared by 99% of the people. Why do you keep ignoring that factual piece of history? Because you want to downplay white people's oppression of ethnic minorities.

slave2moonlight wrote:Ah, you're dragging Affirmative Action into this again when that wasn't even what we were talking about. I've stated time and time again that I was not discussing Affirmative Action. What I was referring to was your anti-white statements, not Affirmative Action. You're trying to shift focus yet again. Of course, if you think it sounds like I was talking about Affirmative Action, well... I guess that says something about Affirmative Action. Interesting...

Maybe I'm not shifting focus, maybe you have a hard time coming up with coherent posts and you find it difficult to stay focused when I expand the issues we're talking about. You see, that's what people do in a debate, but if you can't keep track, I'll try to take small steps...

slave2moonlight wrote: Again, you contradict yourself. You said a while ago that it wasn't about who suffered more

It isn't about that. It's what you keep bringing up, so I'll have to reply to it, even though I have stated I don't think it's important enough to have a fight over. But, if you keep bringing it up, I will continue to reply. Laughing at that makes you look silly, not me.

slave2moonlight wrote:(even though I was never arguing that whites suffered "more", just that they have had some experience with suffering too, as you repeatedly and incorrectly stated that being white meant being privileged).

In general and compared to minorities: yes, it does mean that. That there are many exceptions to the rule doesn't change the rule.

slave2moonlight wrote:And you keep flip flopping on the issues. Your version of the "grand scheme of things" seems to translate to ignoring any aspects of white suffering and only include suffering of other races because it serves your single-sided argument to do so.

First of all: how is that flip-flopping? Second: flip-flopping is a petty term that shouldn't be used in any serious debate. Last: I'm not ignoring anything, since I obviously adressed those issues, but you are unable or (more likely) unwilling to grab the concept of the greater story I'm talking about.

slave2moonlight wrote:Sorry, but that's not historically accurate and is yet another example of racist assumption. You'd have a heck of a time proving that 99% thing, believe me. The majority of people never had a say or vote on anything.

The majority of the people thought it was okay to hold black people as slaves and, later, to uphold segregation. They did so because they were taught that way, at school and in church and by their leaders. Because they were told white people were supreme to black people. And if you don't acknowledge that, you indeed do NOT know the first thing about history and you should educate yourself before making another reply.

slave2moonlight wrote:Going back to the OTHER side now? What was all that peace, love, and understanding junk? I guess it really was just temporary side effects of watching the inauguration.

Peace and love? I said it's not about fighting over suffering because it divides people, insted of uniting them. What has ANY of that got to do with you being so arrogant to think I said something that you have to forgive me for?

slave2moonlight wrote:Ah, okay, I see. I notice you went back and added that later. The magic of editing. Well, we can all go back and edit our posts to make ourselves seem nicer, like cutting out offensive stuff from a Disney film.

As you can see, I edited the post very soon after I originally posted it, and before you even answered. Yes, there is an edit-function, to add things you had forgotten to write in the first place. But if you want to think that's sme kind of evil thing of me to make me look nicer and make you look bad: go ahead, if that makes you feel better.

I'm not gonna comment on most of this because I feel this argument is going nowhere...

'Affirmative action' is not being racist and if you believe it is, you don't know what it is. Just as drfsupercenter doesn't know what it is, because it also includes white people from poor backgrounds.

Affirmative action and financial aid are two totally separate things. Why should it matter if you're rich or poor, black or white, when being admitted into a school (or hired for a job, for that matter)? Affirmative Action is the thing that forces them to do just that... pay attention to ethnicity when admitting/hiring people, and at what cost?
Financial aid, sure, go ahead and spread that among those who need it. I'm not arguing about that. But what does poor backgrounds have to do with anything then?

How can someone argue that it wouldn't be better to simply not ask for your ethnicity/race/whatever term you prefer on an application? There's no possible way to be racist if you don't even know what race a person is from!

Goliath wrote: Like I already explained to you, it's not the sins of "a few", because it came forth from a mindset shared by 99% of the people. Why do you keep ignoring that factual piece of history? Because you want to downplay white people's oppression of ethnic minorities.

No, because it is NOT a fact, it's a racist generalization. Easy one. Next?

Goliath wrote:Maybe I'm not shifting focus, maybe you have a hard time coming up with coherent posts and you find it difficult to stay focused when I expand the issues we're talking about. You see, that's what people do in a debate, but if you can't keep track, I'll try to take small steps...

No, again, you constantly shift focus, as well as constantly trying to say I'm wrong about things I never said in the first place. Very weak debating. If I were you, I'd ease up on pointing out debating skills (and incorrect "facts", for that matter).

Goliath wrote:

slave2moonlight wrote: Again, you contradict yourself. You said a while ago that it wasn't about who suffered more

It isn't about that. It's what you keep bringing up, so I'll have to reply to it, even though I have stated I don't think it's important enough to have a fight over. But, if you keep bringing it up, I will continue to reply. Laughing at that makes you look silly, not me.

See, this is the problem you keep having. You say something is important, than you say it's not. Then it is again, then it's not again. Whatever works best for your racist view. Now you're accusing ME of bringing up examples I only brought up to show the flaws in your statements. Bottom line, you don't want anyone contradicting your flawed views.

Goliath wrote:

slave2moonlight wrote:(even though I was never arguing that whites suffered "more", just that they have had some experience with suffering too, as you repeatedly and incorrectly stated that being white meant being privileged).

In general and compared to minorities: yes, it does mean that. That there are many exceptions to the rule doesn't change the rule.

There you go again. You still haven't looked up the definition of "privileged", and you still don't realize that there are MORE poor, suffering white people than there are white fat-cats, and there always have been.

Goliath wrote: First of all: how is that flip-flopping? Second: flip-flopping is a petty term that shouldn't be used in any serious debate. Last: I'm not ignoring anything, since I obviously adressed those issues, but you are unable or (more likely) unwilling to grab the concept of the greater story I'm talking about.

Flip-flopping is a petty term that shouldn't be used in a serious debate? Where the heck did you get that? If you're flip-flopping, you're flip flopping. It's not a petty term. You have repeatedly contradicted yourself. That's flip-flopping. And I grasp your concept alright, it's just ridiculous and racist, and it shows a wealth of ignorance on the subject, so I'm sorry but I can't get behind it.

Goliath wrote: The majority of the people thought it was okay to hold black people as slaves and, later, to uphold segregation. They did so because they were taught that way, at school and in church and by their leaders. Because they were told white people were supreme to black people. And if you don't acknowledge that, you indeed do NOT know the first thing about history and you should educate yourself before making another reply.

The majority of the people? The majority of the people weren't even involved in slavery. The majority were poor people who couldn't dream of owning livestock, let alone slaves. The fat-cats owned the slaves and ran the government and made the laws, as they always have, and they were never the majority. And segregation had its main support in specific areas of the country, which does not mean it had majority support. If the majority of people supported segregation, we would still have segregation. Now, I'm not saying there wasn't racism within the minds of the majority of white people (and I never have), but that is something you'll find common with every race, and again, it would be utter b.s. to single out white people as being more racist than other races. However, folks having racist feelings (bad as that is) does not automatically equal a desire to torment or enslave a race, nor does it make them evil, even in comparison to the other race in question. You seem to suggest that is the case. Like, somehow, it's fair to be racist towards white people because of white laws that once existed allowing minorities to be treated unfairly. My whole argument is that history does NOT justify racism, and holding anything against an entire race IS racism. Though, I'm sure you'll never understand that, so if the discussion ends here, good riddance.

Goliath wrote: As you can see, I edited the post very soon after I originally posted it, and before you even answered.

No, it wasn't before I replied. It was before I replied to you, but I replied to two people in succession before refreshing the board, so the edit was made AFTER I read the post. Not that it matters, as the edit was a statement you have contradicted enough times.

I was going to post this, but then I wasn't, because reading this argument is giving me a headache. I did want to back up Nathan, though.

Goliath wrote:And you can write over and over again that I can't blame all white people for it, because only afew did it, but that's not true. Not true at all. Because the practice of oppressing those minorities came forth from a mindset that was shared by 99% of white people. Even if they never did the oppression themselves, they condoned it, thought it was okay, voted for people who did the oppression etc.

I have taken many American history classes throughout my schooling. I just noticed that you're not from America, which is fine- I've taken classes where we learned about the histories of other nations. But are you sure you know what you're talking about? In all my years of schooling, I never, ever, ever learned that 99% of white people supported slavery or oppressing minorities. Ever. That just isn't a fact. If it is, prove it. I don't know why the mindset of Southerners was so different from that of Northerners when it came to slavery. Yes, some Southerners had large plantations that needed workers, and that was probably a huge part of having slaves.

My dad's side of the family has always lived in Massachusetts (I have 2 ancestors who were on the Mayflower). Slavery was not common in the North (I'm saying "was not common" versus "didn't exist", since it's possible that some people had slaves there). What I'm trying to get at is that it's not like every American wanted slaves. Many, many Americans surely thought that slavery was wrong. Did you ever hear about the Underground Railroad? Whites helped slaves to freedom. ("But that was the 1% of whites who weren't for slavery," you might say. ) Abraham Lincoln was elected President. He and many of his followers did not believe in slavery either.

I'm basically just trying to say don't mention some crazy statistic and claim it as fact. Back up what you say, I guess, because we believe that that is a very wrong claim.

I fully agree with Nathan and Amy.

President Lincoln abolished slavery, and thousands upon thousands of people celebrated that he did.

Additionally, the northern states never supported slavery.

Hence the "underground railroad" where slaves would run away to the north so they'd automatically be freed. Living in Michigan, I highly doubt that this area was populated by slave owners

I believe (it's been years since I took Social Studies) that Slavery in Canada was also non-existant or at least not very common at all. So Goliath it looks like your 99% is very wrong, perhaps it would be better if you don't make such blanket statements.

Thought I'd chime in on that. I fully agree with Amy, and Nathan has made a lot of good points as well (I haven't read all his posts yet).

slave2moonlight wrote:It certainly doesn't ring of equality, does it?

Sigh . . . no, it doesn't.

blackcauldron85 wrote:I have taken many American history classes throughout my schooling. I just noticed that you're not from America, which is fine- I've taken classes where we learned about the histories of other nations. But are you sure you know what you're talking about? In all my years of schooling, I never, ever, ever learned that 99% of white people supported slavery or oppressing minorities. Ever. That just isn't a fact. If it is, prove it. I don't know why the mindset of Southerners was so different from that of Northerners when it came to slavery. Yes, some Southerners had large plantations that needed workers, and that was probably a huge part of having slaves.

My dad's side of the family has always lived in Massachusetts (I have 2 ancestors who were on the Mayflower). Slavery was not common in the North (I'm saying "was not common" versus "didn't exist", since it's possible that some people had slaves there). What I'm trying to get at is that it's not like every American wanted slaves. Many, many Americans surely thought that slavery was wrong. Did you ever hear about the Underground Railroad? Whites helped slaves to freedom. ("But that was the 1% of whites who weren't for slavery," you might say. ) Abraham Lincoln was elected President. He and many of his followers did not believe in slavery either.

I'm basically just trying to say don't mention some crazy statistic and claim it as fact. Back up what you say, I guess, because we believe that that is a very wrong claim.

Ok, so I'm pretty sure that what you just said right there deserves some kind of award, Amy! I was thinking the exact same thing! I guess as our saying goes, "GMTA!!"

Last post I will dedicate to this subject. (No, for real this time!)

Ending slavery did not end inequality; it did not end denying black people the right to vote; it did not end the right white people had to refuse to serve black people in their stores and restaurants; it did not end the practice of black people not being able to go to the school they wanted to go to; it did not end forcing black people to stand up for white people on the bus. Ending slavery did not end the segregation.

Black people were still considered 3/5 human. That was even in the Constitution, so of course that's what people were taught. And it's this general mindset that caused first slavery and then legal segregation to linger on for so long.

It wasn't until 1964 that black people got full equal civil rights. Why did it took so long to end legal segregation? Because the big majority of the white people agreed with it. Either out of racism or out of habit. Yes, "99%" is a hyperbole; yes, it is used to make a point that you are all denying. Are you proud you 'got me' on a hyperbole?

Goliath wrote:
Ending slavery did not end inequality; it did not end denying black people the right to vote; it did not end the right white people had to refuse to serve black people in their stores and restaurants; it did not end the practice of black people not being able to go to the school they wanted to go to; it did not end forcing black people to stand up for white people on the bus. Ending slavery did not end the segregation.

Either out of racism or out of habit. Yes, "99%" is a hyperbole; yes, it is used to make a point that you are all denying. Are you proud you 'got me' on a hyperbole?

True inequality didn't end when slavery did, but it was a large step forward. Or would you have rather had slavery and inequality until 1964? Point is while it didn't end completely at least some of it did end.

Perhaps it was most likely out of habit, habits are hard to break especially ones that are bad (smoking, bad sleeping habits for other examples).

We weren't trying to "get you" with the 99%, it's merely such a ridiculous exaggeration and honestly it comes off as a tad stupid to make such a blanket statement when you want people to take you seriously, maybe if you had lowered that percentage then we wouldn't have to "get you"

I don't think that there's an overarching SOTS thread for discussion of the film...not just its controversies...so I'll post this here:

I'm browsing SongoftheSouth.net, and I came across this very interesting article about the SOTS that never was:

http://www.mouseplanet.com/8584/Song_of ... _Never_Was

Here's another interesting article about the Brer Rabbit comic strip:

http://www.mouseplanet.com/8231/Disneys ... unny_Pages

Yet another interesting article about the premiere of SOTS and critics' reactions:

http://www.mouseplanet.com/8235/The_Son ... h_Premiere

And here are pictures from the World Premiere:

http://www.songofthesouth.net/movie/pho ... index.html

I found all this facinating, and I just wanted to share!

*edit*
Another interesting article found via SongoftheSouth.net (it's not so much informative as it is interesting):

http://www.darkacres.com/Song_of_the_South.html

Goliath wrote: Black people were still considered 3/5 human. That was even in the Constitution

This was the Enumeration Clause, regarding population and the number of Congressmen from each state.

Interestingly, it was the Northerners who didn't want the slaves counted at all, but the Southerners wanted them counted as whole people... The 3/5ths was a compromise.

Obviously the southern states wanted more control in Congress based on their population (including slaves,) even though the slaves didn't vote.

I have a bootleg DVD of this film (Laserdisc transfer, not really great quality). I really don't see what's so bad about the movie (besides the lace collar, Haha). The hero in the story is an African-American man. He tells stories. There are workers on a plantation. It could be a lot worse. Just look at "The Jazz Singer." (If "The Jazz Singer" has already been mentioned, sorry, I only had the attention span to skim the first 3 pages, Haha). "The Jazz Singer" straight on is racist. Warner Bros. released it on DVD (and it hasn't been taken back into the "vault"). The controversy over this film is taken way too seriously. The last time it was re-released, it was re-released in 1986, and from what I've read, no controversy surrounded that re-release. Warner Bros. took a risky chance, and they're still alive. Hell, they had the highest box office film last year. Why can't Disney take the same chance?

Because people are more prepared to criticize them. Why else does everyone eat up the "Hannah Montana and HSM are crap" buzz every single freakin' day. You should see some of the quotes for that captions contest to win a copy of Bolt I posted a link for earlier(some as low as "Disney casting directors making the next pick"). Don't even get me started on the "Sex" controversies surrounding many of the platinum edition films.

The truth is, people are waiting for a reason to give Disney the finger and completely blow off everything they say.