DEBATE: Calling all cars - let's just park 'em at the curb!

[All Aboard]

This began as a response to Scoop's "Real Car #3 Protest" thread, but (in Landbaron fashion) I've decided to pull it out and make it it's own thread.
-------------------------------------------------------

Since I'm the numbskull that proposed the numbering of the cars way back when, maybe I should be the person to suggest the elimination of references to it.

Initially, it seemed like a good idea to get a sense of peoples' general opinions, but now it really has begun to cause more problems and drive a derisive division here on this board.

It seems that a tendency towards lumping all the thoughts and opinions of an individual to that of a "car" has overtaken us. Statements like "I would expect that of a Car X person" are quite common. Scary how it starts to sound almost racist in tone. Even if that sounds a bit extreme, it has certainly defeated much of the individual thought here. It seems that no thread can go through to the end without reference and generalization made to a person by way of their car allegiance. The words typed are almost overlooked. Instead it's 1. Check the username, 2. Remind oneself what car they are in and 3. Respond accordingly.

I'd like to call together all of my brethren (and sistren) to cease and desist all reference to car numbers from this point forward. It may be difficult, I know, but we'll all be better off for it.

By show of hands (responses) who's willing to drop this nonsense and start interacting with everyone as individuals?

 

[raidermatt]

I don't know, I prefer being called a car 1'er rather than being called blind, a lemming, or Disney apologist...

 

[Peter Pirate]

Sorry, I'm with Matt, I don't see the personal negative stigma attached to a 'car rider' but without the distinction, we will start to be called names indvidually again. I think the cars have truly helped keep things civil despite the loss of individuality we have experienced...

May have to take a vote here!

 

[airlarry!]

I for one don't mind the Car analogies. It reminds me that, except for the will o' wisp Car 4 inhabitants, we are all 'driving' toward our next vacation to WDW.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Greg,

While I understand the reasoning behind the request I think I have to throw in with the folks who like the car idea. As most of you may remember it started with the dear departed JJ. Coming to my defense, as I recall. I was posting about some terrible thing that management did and before you know it a certain duck and pirate (along with a few others) were down my innocent little throat. I was trying to fend them off, when JJ posted. He mentioned that with the inclusion of another regular Disney booster (read: apologist) who’s name escapes me now, the car pool would be complete!! I had one heck of good laugh over that!!

A couple days later JJ was sooooo frustrated that he formed his own car pool away from the boards!! (Something I have to do every once in a while to keep what little salinity I have left. Evidently, JJ did too.) As I remember I was one of the first to join the car pool and stayed away from posting for about a month. But…. Well…. As time went on… and I read some of the ridiculous things the apologists were writing… well… like Roger Rabbit hearing “Shave and a hair cut...” I had to jump back in!

It was about that time you posted what now resides on the top of our Board. And quite frankly, I like it. Car #1 is so much easier to type than, “apologist, excuser, justifier, rose-colored-glasses-mindset, Ei$ner-loving son-of-a bi…”!!!!

And every one seems to know what we're talking about. Now I know that I almost always agree with AV, JJ, Airlarry AND Raidermatt!! But certainly not on every single issue. But the car thing stops a lot of the name calling (sometimes innocent, sometimes not) and for the most part curtails most inadvertent flaming.

This Board is one of the most intellectual and polite boards I’ve ever seen. We are extremely tolerant through all our disagreements and debates. I really think it is because we old timers have worked hard at keeping the peace, ignoring some things and trying to give the benefit of the doubt whenever possible. And I also think that the car classifications help that, rather than hinder it.

Anyone else agree?

(now if we could just get this Chad guy to shut up for a change )

 

[All Aboard]

But, "car number calling" has simply replaced name calling. It's really the same thing. More pleasant? Perhaps, but really the same thing.

It's the categorization that bothers me. It's group-think taken to an extreme. I want to get rid of that.

But, it seems that I am in the minority on this issue - and it really impacts me the least, since I am in neither of the warring cars.

So, I'll say this. I will no longer make reference to car numbers when posting. And, I will have to strongly consider whether I will respond to any thread that resorts to "number calling."

It really strikes me as odd that Peter Pirate doesn't like this. He is the victom of being summarily dismissed as a Car 1 occupant all the time. That sort of thing gets us nowhere.

JeffJewell, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this one.

 

[Peter Pirate]

I agree with your assesment Greg, but before the cars, I was routinely called names personaly which I have a harder time resolving...

This way, those shallow minded individuals of any car who thinks I'm totally a homer or maybe worse yet an idiot can just brush me off with a 'car #1' comment...Much easier than being called an idiot...And more civil!

 

[EUROPA]

Or having someone tell you that your opinions are not based on intelligent thought? As if NASA was beating down that persons door wanting them to join their Rocket Scientist team….

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

More pleasant? Perhaps, but really the same thing.

No. Not the same thing. I think it’s human nature to… Let me start again. In the heat of the moment it is very, very easy to fall into name calling, if nothing more than referencing a “rose-colored” whatever. I’m very guilty of that. And I’ve never meant any harm by it. I never meant it as name-calling, just a simple, common, reference point that we can all relate to, the caller and the callee alike. And you are right. The car thing is similar. But not as nasty. More polite. And that’s what we value on this Board.

It really strikes me as odd that Peter Pirate doesn't like this. He is the victim of being summarily dismissed as a Car 1 occupant all the time.

See!!! I think this is where you make your mistake. There is no ‘dismissal’ about it! He is not a victim!! I don’t feel like a ‘victim’ or ‘dismissed’ because I drive a #3 car! And he shouldn’t either. It’s like feeling a victim because he professes to be a republican or a democrat. That doesn’t make sense!! It easily categorizes ideology. That’s it!! Nothing more. And, if you really analyze it, certainly not all the time or with every single issue. Just generally! In other words are you a “Waltist” or an “Eisnerist” (the first time in a year that I haven’t used the obligatory “$” in the name!).

and it really impacts me the least, since I am in neither of the warring cars.

Not “warring”, Greg. Debating. Philosophically opposed!

And now!!! There are three of four other threads that need my attention very badly!! So I’m off!! As soon as I can get this car(#3) started!!!! And I've got NASA on the other line!!!!

 

[raidermatt]

gcurling, sorry if my original answer was a little brief. Just an attempt at levity....

I honestly think that those who generalize/stereotype/etc, will do so whether we use cars or not. I know I try not to, but I'm sure I'm guilty of it on occasion.

Not “warring”, Greg. Debating. Philosophically opposed!

This is certainly how I view the discussions, and truly apologize if I've overstepped the "discussion" definition on occaision and moved into "warring".

 

[TiggerFreak]

It really doesn't matter what name, label, car, epithet, ....
we all use in reference to each other.

Just the simple fact that we all spend precious moments of our lives here on these boards proselytizing the world of Disney, proves we are all of the same ilk.

What is language but a system of labels?

 

[dragonflymanor]

since I am in neither of the warring cars.

Why do I have this idea of a twisted scene from Mad Max except everyone is driving Minivans and SUV's plastered with Mickey?

I don't know maybe it's just my twisted mind, or my twisted, Car - what car AM I in now again?

Oh well, all I know is that I want to drive the truck! (So who plays the bald guy?)

Roger
Dragonfly Manor

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

Matt's right: banning "Car #X" from our collective posting vocabulary will relocate the problem, not remove it. Labels are only words, and words are only tools, to be used for good or ill at our whim.

Too many posters fail to distinguish between a comment on a _concept_ and a comment on a _person_. There is a difference between saying "That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard anyone say" and saying "Car #3 riders are dumb." The first, while perhaps not being the most benign way to express a point, concentrates on the topic at hand and can be a valid way to begin a meaningful discussion, whereas the second focuses attention on the posters rather than the topic, and consistently serves to end meaningful discussion.

Most importantly in this forum, one of them is ornery but on topic, while the other is completely inappropriate here.

Again, like Matt says, that problem will be with us whether we use the Carpool analogy or not. You really have to address this kind of thing on a case-by-case basis; if a certain poster keeps concentrating on stereotyping individuals rather than commenting on the topic, whether or not they use the term "Car," you get to give 'em some cross-hairs. If a person keeps countering your posts using words you don't happen to like, well, you get to suck it up and make better points.

Civility has to do with how you treat _people_. Treat the ideas with whatever disdain you feel for them, but leave your comments and speculations about the people behind them out of it.

-WFH

PS: Before I leave the topic, there's one part of the whole Carpool dynamic that I haven't been able to figure out. I understand that some Car #3 riders consider Car #1 riders dangerous, in the sense that Car #1, by definition, sends Disney the message that their direction and decisions, the basis of creating Magic, are right on target and just as Magical as ever, a message with which Car #3 largely and occasionally violently disagrees. So I can see why Car #3 sometimes addresses Car #1 from a defensive, threatened position. What I've never been able to figure out is why so many Car #1 posters sooner or later seem to respond to a Car #3 opinion with some variety of "If you don't like it, don't go." What do those posters feel is so threatening about the opinions of Car #3 riders that the posters should want to see the opinions obliterated?

PPS:

JeffJewell, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this one.

The evidence available to me suggests that we've seen the last JeffJewell post on the DIS. Sorry, no legs, can't dance on anything for anyone's sake, so don't even ask.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Here is my $.02 FWIW (and some may not think much). I think the carpool analogy is rather inventive and provides a good way to address certain broad issues without having to remember and name names and pick on certain positions. I think it has a place here and can be used effectively. That being said, I will try to use such references a bit more sparingly. It appears that too casual a use of such references, even if intended to be lighthearted, can be upsetting to some. No one around here looks to upset anyone else, nor does anyone appreciate getting nasty responses to their posts. If limiting the use of the carpool references can keep this from happening I'm with Greg.

PS

I do still think there are a few fundemental misunderstandings about what the cars actually mean. Perhaps that drives a further wedge between them, when they really aren't that far apart.

Before I leave the topic, there's one part of the whole Carpool dynamic that I haven't been able to figure out. I understand that some Car #3 riders consider Car #1 riders dangerous, in the sense that Car #1, by definition, sends Disney the message that their direction and decisions, the basis of creating Magic, are right on target and just as Magical as ever

I've never looked at the cars this way. I do not believe this definition of Car #1 and it certainly can't be found in the carpool poll. First off, there are many things that create the Magic and keep it strong, both old and new. While the new Magic may be a bit sparse, that doesn't detract from the pre-existing magic, that foundation, which Car #1ers might see as impervious to Evil E mistakes. Those in Car#1 use the same avenues as Car #3ers to effect change and send the message that, hey, not all is right in the World. But just because not all is right in the World, it doesn't necessarily diminish the Magic. Most, if not all, Car #1ers don't think current management is right on target, but we do believe the Magic is just as strong as ever. I would also ask how, exactly, the defensive Car #3ers feel Car #1ers send this so called message? Is it by visiting WDW? Well, each of us, no matter what car we are in, does that. Some Car #3ers more than Car #1ers. How do Car #3ers send any different message? Scratch that question, it is being discussed in the protest thread.

Is it possible that we are talking about different 'Magic'? Maybe that is where the misunderstanding lies. I started a post - Benchmarking the Disney Magic - to try and get some feedback to see exactly what the Magic means to different people. Perhaps if we understand that we can better understand why people feel the way they do. It is not intended for anyone to say anyone else is wrong since the Magic is different to each and every person. Look at what makes the Magic for me and maybe you'll understand how some of the woeful mistakes of the current regime don't diminish my Magic. Unfortunately, I have yet to see many Car #3ers show up on that thread. Drop by and maybe we can all understand one another a little better.

 

[All Aboard]

Oh well, I lost my one supporter and failed to capture the support of one I figured I was sure to get.

Sorry, no legs, can't dance on anything for anyone's sake, so don't even ask.

Sorry for calling you out like that. Message received, it won't happen again.

If I accomplished anything, perhaps I have folks thinking a little harder about blanketing statements and generalities. That was the true goal anyhow.

 

[larworth]

The car references have been helpful in understanding some points of view, but they also have often been a detriment in our discussions. I do think it is time for some reexamination.

I believe when the car number poll was originally posted there was a limit on how many categories you could have. Thus four had to cover a range of positions that is really so much broader (if only better, same, worse and magic, management, future was our matrix). This has caused some miscast labels and wasted debate (when sides really agree on a issue).

Car position rhetoric too often takes precedent over the underlying concept or topic. I just don't see that everything is bad or everything is good, so having to put every action into one of these two buckets to defend a car position stiffles our learning. I know my post count has slowed as positioning battles have intensified of late.

I can live with them. but hope we can find a way for them not to always be such a badge of honor or dishonor.

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

I do not believe this definition of Car #1 and it certainly can't be found in the carpool poll.

Car #1 says "The Magic is as strong as ever." That's as simple and direct a statement as anyone's ever made on these boards.

First off, there are many things that create the Magic and keep it strong, both old and new. While the new Magic may be a bit sparse, that doesn't detract from the pre-existing magic

This is the first place where I have to scratch my head. If "the Magic is as strong as ever," and "new Magic may be a bit sparse... doesn't detract from pre-existing magic," then "the new Magic has always been sparse... didn't detract from pre-existing magic." I don't agree with that last statement, and I suspect you don't either, but it logically follows from your comments and the banner on the Car you've chosen. Cars #2 and #3 make no sense if you try to define them to mean "DinoRama stinks so bad, I can't enjoy Haunted Mansion because of the smell." Of course, Car #1 forcing that definition onto Car #3 _would_ explain some of the less amicable posts emanating from Car #1 posters.

But just because not all is right in the World, it doesn't necessarily diminish the Magic.

And here's where the percieved name-calling will begin.

There are two aspects to Magic (just as there are two aspects to communication), the creation and the reception.

I completely understand anyone who will say "I'm in Car #1 because the most important aspect of Magic is my RECEPTION of Magic." This is their opinion, and I'm more than willing to fight anyone who tries to take that from them.

But a long-time sub-plot on the Rumors Board concerns defining Magic, and whether or not we can do that without resorting to terms or definitions that reduce to "I like it."

One person saying "I like it" is not wrong, but it's also not a meaningful basis for discussion in this forum. Hell, we'll have to have 39,512 Cars if "I like it" is going to be used as Car selection criteria.

I think it's both more important and less quarrelsome to discuss Disney's decisions and direction WITHOUT CONCERN for whether or not one happens to enjoy the result.

If we were discussing a restaurant, say, I think it would be more important for us to discuss decisions and directions like "sit-down or counter service" and "pre-packaged microwave meals or fresh gourmet preparation" rather than arguing over who likes fish and who likes chicken. Discussion of the relative merits of the methods and techniques used in CREATION of the product, not "will not/will too" bickering over individuals' RECEPTION of the product.

So, even though I understand the statement "I'm in Car #1 because I personally enjoy it and feel Magic," I don't think that definition helps our conversation one iota, I don't think that definition is conducive to appreciating the opinions of others, and I definitely don't think that definition is what "The Magic is as strong as ever" meant.

Perhaps a different tack will illustrate what I mean: if the way you are reading Car #1's definition was the way _everyone_ was reading it, Cars #2 and #3 would be nearly empty. Is it not yet clear to everyone that three Cars are on their way _to_ Disney? Does anyone think Car #3 is full of people who see no remaining Magic, but hang out here and go to WDW just because they want to make themselves suffer?

The RECEPTION of the Magic is what we have in _common_, it is _not_ what defines our difference.

It's the creation of the Magic that we can talk about beyond a shouting match of who likes what. How does Disney now create, compared to the way they created before? Are there aspects of creation that lead to a wider spectrum of folks having good reception of that Magic?

In your quote, you say "not all is right in the World." That's what Car #2 and Car #3 are saying. You've taken some very contrary stances against groups who largely agree with you.

Unfortunately, I have yet to see many Car #3ers show up on that thread. Drop by and maybe we can all understand one another a little better.

It's nothing personal, it's just that folks who have been around here a long time have done that several times. I personally feel that we have never had, and likely can never have, that discussion without it breaking down into a cheerleading contest for what made the biggest impression on us when we were each six. I have never seen such a thread improve the level of understanding between posters, but I have seen them get ugly.

The problem with the Cars is now they've been personalized. Despite the fairly plain banners draped across them, it's clear that people picked Cars based on different criteria.

I mean, if Car #1 thinks "I love Disney..." is the meaningful part of the sentence and thinks the Cars are some outward measure of that love, it's obvious there's going to be friction with Car #3, who felt the "I love Disney..." part was a given for all of us, and we chose Cars based on how many "...but I'm concerned about..." we each tack on the end of "I love Disney..."

-WFH

PS: Greg: Actually, the "no legs" comment was just some black humor presupposing a Car #1 request that someone dance on JeffJewell's grave, once it became clear he's not coming back. Joke from the Head, not a message from the departed. And I must say that, although the end result might not have been precisely what you had in mind when you started this thing, you did indeed stir up some quality discussion about our little corner of the web and how we might live in it. Well done.

 

[DisneyKidds]

WFH....

Are you saying that this

Car #1, by definition, sends Disney the message that their direction and decisions, the basis of creating Magic, are right on target and just as Magical as ever

is the same as this

Car #1 says "The Magic is as strong as ever."

Funny, I thought I knew how to read. I guess I was mistaken.

Now, no offense intended Mr. Head, but the freezing has had quite an effect.

If "the Magic is as strong as ever," and "new Magic may be a bit sparse... doesn't detract from pre-existing magic," then "the new Magic has always been sparse... didn't detract from pre-existing magic." I don't agree with that last statement, and I suspect you don't either, but it logically follows from your comments and the banner on the Car you've chosen. Cars #2 and #3 make no sense if you try to define them to mean "DinoRama stinks so bad, I can't enjoy Haunted Mansion because of the smell." Of course, Car #1 forcing that definition onto Car #3 _would_ explain some of the less amicable posts emanating from Car #1 posters.

Does this make sense to anyone????? Please explain it to me. Furthermore, is it possible for you to post without reducing the opinions of others to uninformed, undefendable stereotypes? You are so big on advocating the discussion of ideas and topics, yet I don't see much productive input here. As for the 'old' vs 'new', nothing I see Disney doing today is changing what was CREATED yesterday, or in 1972, at least not to any significant measure. Main St. USA is the same today as it was then.

The rest of your post does lend itself to discussion, however we would likely just go around in circles. The Magic, IMO, is not objective - it is very subjective - and can not be bottled up. As such, many discussions have to be taken outside the cars and Magic must be removed from the equation. Then we can discuss if decision X or direction y is good or bad for the company or for WDW. However, there are many different things that decision x and direction y CREATE that are Magic, we just may not all RECEIVE it. Who are you to say what CREATES Magic? Who are you to say 'No, that didn't CREATE Magic, you mistakenly perceived it as such just because you like it'? Back to that egocentric thinking again.

It's nothing personal, it's just that folks who have been around here a long time have done that several times.

I guess this dog should just put his tail between his legs and slink home while the rest of you dogs chase your tail around in circles.

it's obvious there's going to be friction with Car #3

Funny thing is, I have yet to feel an ounce of friction with respect to this stuff. (Wait, step back, that is until yesterday when someone jumped all over me) I thought it was all fun, about trying to learn what makes WDW what it is for different people so I might be able to find new ways to look at things and a better way to experience WDW and enjoy the Magic. I guess not everyone has such a purpose around here. Perhaps I just need a break. A few weeks from now if all that is being discussed is the same rhetoric of the past month, in the same way, with the same result, I will be glad I took the break.

Now which way did the Captain go? Pirate, do you know?

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

is it possible for you to post without reducing the opinions of others to uninformed, undefendable stereotypes?

Yes. I did that. When I attributed something to you, personally, I referenced your own posts. The only place I referenced stereotypes was where I mentioned that a certain hypothetical situation would explain a currently unexplained phenomenon.

It's all right there in the quote you pulled. Don't you know how to read?

I thought I knew how to read. I guess I was mistaken.

No sweat, it happens.

Funny thing is, I have yet to feel an ounce of friction with respect to this stuff.

Yeah, I know what you mean. One time I was on a plane with an enormous woman in the seat next to me, billowing over the armrest and taking up much of my seat. Because I was so polite and PC about it, the poor dear was completely insensitive to the friction she was causing.

See how much respect I have for you, that I would break from my typically polite and PC ways, just to help you understand the effect you have on others!

-WFH

 

[All Aboard]

Disneykidds, the paragraph from WFH's post that you culled out and asked if it made sense to anyone makes absolute perfectly clear sense to me. And, I think it very accurately illustrates the perception problem between groups.

Only hours after I said I wouldn't do this, I have to reference the cars. Since this issue is specifically about how car language is used, I guess I'm only being partially hypocritical.

I defined Car #1 in the poll as the "Magic hasn't faded" This was a very extreme definition, just as extreme as the definition of Car #4 = "The Magic is gone, I'm not going back."

To be a true rider in Car #1, the Magic needs to be absolutely as strong (in total) [or at least very close] to what it has been throughout all the time you've been enamored with WDW. To me, that requires that all additions, subtractions and changes (taken in whole) have not move your personal "Magic" needle in negative direction with any significance.

What Car #1 is NOT is "I love WDW." That's cars 1, 2 & 3. Car #1 is not "I still feel the Magic" That's ALSO cars 1, 2 & 3. Car #1 also is NOT "I really still enjoy going to WDW" That's ALSO cars 1, 2 & 3.

If you (not you specifically, but you to all readers) have significant issues with the construction of certain resorts, certain attractions, certain closures, certain park operating hours, etc. Then a re-examination of your car allegience might be in order.

That's how Car #1 works. Honestly, I would expect few people to be in Car #1 or Car #4.

The point that WFH makes about questioning why Car #3 riders return to WDW should have been answered above. IF in fact Dinorama, the elimination of EE, hours cutbacks, closure of CoP during Walt's Celebration WERE strong enough negatives to cause one not to want to return, then that person belongs in Car #4, not Car #3. I understood the Dinorama/Haunted Mansion analogy perfectly.

So, when someone makes the statement "Just because I'm in Car #1 doesn't mean that I am happy with everything that has happened at WDW recently" it really is a contradictory statement.

I honestly don't think some of the Car #1 occupants really belong there. But, by putting themselves there, they are subject to others questioning statements that they make.

That's why (after careful re-examination) I put myself in Car #2. The Magic is still very strong, and there are some "little" issues that don't get to me as much as they do to others. And there are also some decisions that many disagree with, but I quite agree with (All Stars are one example.) BUT, I cannot say with conviction that everything that has happened in the last 2-3 years has maintained the same level of "perceived" Magic for me. It just hasn't. I'll spare the list. But, I am hopeful that the right leadership can set it back on course.