Will Bob Chapek be Replaced?

  At this point, bad news for Disney CEO Bob Chapek is so normal that no one expects him to get any good news.  It was only last week that I told to someone I know that there’s a chance Disney might try to replace Chapek. Much to my lack of surprise, an article dropped this week that media executives believed that failed Presidential candidate (and former Disney CEO) Bob Iger might be brought back to replace Bob Chapek.  So, not wanting to be disbelieved that I predicted Chapek’s potential fall, I thought I'd give my analysis on reasons why Chapek might be removed, the motivations for the people making the decision, the strengths and weaknesses of Iger as an alternative, and the likely impact on the company regardless of what happens.

It’s no secret Bob Chapek is extremely unpopular as CEO of the company with fans amid growing complaints about leadership.  It takes about two seconds to find negative press and never-ending complaints about his decisions and events going on at Disney, especially in the parks with the decision to make fastpasses a paid service through the Genie+/Lightning Lane controversy and the terrible rollout of the Star Wars hotel fiasco.  It’s not just fans though as negative press has been following him from official Hollywood news services trying to cast him in a negative light, from the controversy over contract negotiations with Scarlet Johansson to the long awaited industry backlash over the company’s handling of Star Wars.  So from Disney’s customers to industry insiders, every walk of the entertainment machine seems to want a piece of him.

This isn’t just going unnoticed as actions by Chapek seem to suggest that this is starting to weigh heavily on him.  The man has been avoiding press events that would give increased chances to take questions or face fan backlash over decisions at the parks.  Likewise, there were reports that he’s extremely upset about his reputation as a “beancounter” so he’s definitely aware of his bad reputation.  It’s not surprising therefore that there are rumors that he might be removed as CEO.

However, though the growing problems with Chapek are superficially easy to find, people may not understand those likely aren’t important to Disney investors.  Firstly, that would be because he’s managed to mostly weather the controversies without massive hits to the company structure.  The Scarlett Johansson lawsuit was settled out of court with Marvel head Kevin Feige claiming Chapek had been underestimated after initial reports of feuding, managed to get positive early reviews for the Genie+ system, and most importantly has been able to get most of proposals instituted such as increased control over creatives to distribution and managing to get price increases.  Overall, he is still getting what he wants which means he has a lot of power.

Secondly, he has the full support of the board for those decisions.  Reports confirm that decisions under Chapek such as prioritizing streaming were being pushed for by board members.  In fact, reporter Kamran Pasha argued that what was doing may have been on behalf of Iger’s successor as Chairman, Susan Arnold, so it may be that Chapek is actually making policies based on what the board wants as opposed to acting independently.  It’s therefore unlikely they’re going to fire him if they are getting what they want.

It’s important to remember that as a company, Disney needs a lot of money to stay afloat and Chapek’s decisions are intended to make Disney more profitable.  Most of the decisions come at a time when Disney has been bleeding cash and needs to get itself back on track for that reason.  As a result, most of Chapek’s financial decisions have made sense purely from a business standpoint and that would make sense as to why it appeals to investors and board members, who are the main point of power Chapek has to worry about.

People may not understand this, but Disney has been taking on massive amounts of debt and doing massive spending sprees in the last decade.  Obviously, the pandemic hit them hard and the had to take on massive loans and face heavy layoffs to stay around.  Making up for that has to be a priority, especially now that the lockdowns are ending and Disney has opportunities to make money at the parks and the box office.

Nevertheless, issues with spending were also a huge problem when Bob Iger was still CEO that will need to be accounted for in the future.  Under his leadership, they spent money like drunken sailors with the company over spending on purchases for Star Wars and Fox.  They even bought two new cruise ships right before the pandemic hit, meaning those went unused.  Keeping in mind he actually said there was no money in video games right before it was revealed the company was considering buying Activision (and dodged a bullet by not doing so), it seems he had one heck of a spending problem.

Likewise, there were other issues with Iger as well, such as his global initiative.  While that had some success in Africa and especially Latin America, neither was really the company’s focus as he was instead interested in China.  From making films primarily for the country to shooting a movie in the Xinjiang region with Chinese concentration camps (and thanking the people running it in the credits), Iger made a priority to expand Disney’s global influence and like most of Hollywood thought the future for global trade was the country with the world’s largest population.  Unfortunately, the business community is pushing to leave China amid souring ties between the US and China with Bob Chapek signaling similar intent, to the point that it was rumored he was considering selling Disneyland Hong Kong and Shanghai, so this only further implies Chapek was picked to undo Iger’s legacy.

This sets the stage then for the idea that the Disney board has no intention of bringing back Iger and will probably keep Chapek in the short term.  It was rumored that Iger was actually forced out by the board and Chapek was their replacement for him despite not being ready for the job (rumors not helped by the joint interview they did).  So since they are supporting his decisions and may have wanted his predecessor gone, it seems unlikely they’d want him back after pushing him out and taking the company in a radically different direction.

For those unaware, this is a product of an existing corporate war between established Hollywood and there growing replacements.  Historically, those heads of Hollywood have run in a different direction than corporate Wall Street.  Recent mergers have put a lot of traditional Hollywood companies under the control of organizations that haven’t been part of their club and that’s changing their model, industry, and organization in ways that will have lasting implications and likely ruin the power of established Hollywood elites.

In recent years, celebrity culture has been on the decline with people getting increasingly sick of decades of scandals, entitled celebrities, and recent pushes for activism, as reflected in declines in viewership for the Oscars, movie theaters and comic book stores closing, and failure in new marketing campaigns to gain traction.  Historically, Hollywood has prioritized good press over making money (to the point that Marvel comics restructured its stories around a comic book series that was well reviewed but financially unprofitable), and that has resulted in repeated financial loses for the industry (such as declining return on investment at the box office, Disney Star Wars films making less than the prequels when adjusted for inflation, toy sale declines, and multiple projects being announced and canceled which implies corporate infighting).  Since a business must be profit first and Hollywood isn’t, inevitably their models must be changed and since they have refused to do that, it’s inevitable they’ll be amalgamated like every other failed industry or company that became outdated.

Keep in mind, Iger allowed company heads like Lucasfilm President Kathleen Kennedy and Marvel President Kevin Feige to have limitless power and multi-year contracts.  As a result, he was well liked by the heads of Hollywood as he gave them what they wanted, even when it was causing fan backlash.  With Chapek in the seat, the focus has been primarily on profit which Hollywood doesn’t want as that could come at the cost of their power and prestige.  It seems unlikely to change though and this will likely be the future of the industry as several other companies in the industry like Warner Brothers are facing mergers and the next chairman of Disney, Susan Arnold, used to work for the Carlyle Group, one of the largest investing firms on Wall Street whose CEO was recently elected Governor of Virginia, so it suggests the new model is here to stay as profit motivation takes over the industry.  Since the old guard in Hollywood is losing power, it’s likely they’ll keep fighting to maintain their power, but they are going out of style and there’s no reason to believe the profit driven focus of the new entertainment industry will be here to stay.

All the same, though the chances of Iger returning are limited and it’s unlikely Chapek’s changes will be undone, that doesn’t mean his position is safe.  Since Chapek’s entire career is about profit as opposed to press, it means he has to start making money for the company to justify his presence.  There are issues with his rollout the company is facing.

Issues that Chapek is facing include stagnant subscriptions to Disney+.  Disney was prioritizing that as its future last year and it still wasn’t projected to start making money until 2022 so that will need to make back a decent amount for Disney’s bottom line.  Since subscriptions have stagnated, that will be a point of concern for his longterm success.

Likewise, other ideas he’s now rolling out need to be successful and we won’t have the financial data for a while.  There are already cancellations for the overly expensive Star Wars hotel Disney is rolling out and the Genie+ system in the Disney parks is extremely unpopular with Disney fans.  In addition, Chapek did see failures as head of Disney Parks such as the magic band system that did not make nearly the money expected, and the underperformance of Galaxy’s Edge in part because he repeatedly slashed the addition’s budget, including cancelling a third ride and live shows that were later added to the Star Wars hotel.  We tragically won’t know how successful his reforms will be, but it could be a while before he sees the data the board and investors want and that could spell doom for his tenure.

There have been rumors he was picked as a scapegoat when the debt Iger put the company in finally hit the fan so that may be Chapek's legacy more than anything else.  He is doing what the board wants at this time (and may even be ordering him to) but Hollywood for now still thrives on press.  Removing him and replacing him with someone else could potentially be a way to rebuild some burnt bridges with fans and the old guard of Hollywood.

However, it’s unlikely his removal would change anything.  If these are the actual policies of the board and have their complete support, then it’s unlikely his replacement will rock the boat significantly and will probably keep everything Chapek has done in place (provided it was profitable).  There may be some minor changes to give the impression of reform, but it will never be significant enough to overhaul the new system of business in any way and won’t be more than enough to reduce negative press.  As a result, the best time to get rid of Chapek would actually be after he’s instituted all desired reforms the board wants, and then replace him with someone who’s essentially the same but won’t have any baggage.  This will keep everything in order as it is while superficially winning back potential customers and the old guard of Hollywood.

As for Iger, it’s unlikely he’d be their first pick unless there was no one else (as is what kept Kathleen Kennedy’s job alive for so long).  It’s possible he comes back, but with significantly reduced authority with most power being held by the company chairman.  Keep in mind, Iger was Chairman and CEO as of 2012 so just bringing him back as CEO won’t fully restore him to power unless Susan Arnold leaves.  As a result, he may be brought back purely as a figurehead for superficial “remember the glory days” nostalgia bait while the company is run differently.  As a result, this establishes the idea that new Chapek Disney is here to stay.

Of course, this is all dependent on Chapek’s reforms failing and Disney not getting the money/success it wants in the way/time it wants.  If things work out, the rattling of angry journalists who are losing power won’t mean anything.  If they don’t, they will instead likely find a way to keep what’s happening now stay the way it is in the future regardless of one man’s dream.  Regardless, it is unlikely there is any reason to remove Chapek so he’ll likely be staying around for a while and if he isn’t, there’s no reason to believe his removal will be a major change.

Novena to Blessed Charles the Good

Repeat the following Novena every day for 9 consecutive days:

Let us begin, In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. 

O Blessed Charles the Good, whose love for God knew no bounds.  

You knew tragedy when you were young with the death of your father and yet never let that push you from God.  

You instead sought to serve him by working on behalf of the poor and the most vulnerable while rejecting the luxuries of the world.  

For this, you were martyred as you prayed and yet it did not change the good you did.  

I humbly ask that you pray for us now; that our own hearts may be open to God’s word and that we may may serve his creation, especially the most vulnerable, as you did.  I especially ask for (mention your request here…)

And for us to be made more in the image of Christ.

Amen.    

Our Father… 

Hail Mary… 

Glory Be…

Dr. Moreau is Dead

          After watching multiple videos about the nightmare that was the making of the film “The Island of Dr. Moreau,” I decided to watch the film myself to see if it was as bad as the production.  In short, it was not terrible, just horribly unfocused and confused with most of the actors lacking the ability to care about the film either because of personal problems or losing the will to continue because of their terrible experiences on the production.  Though the story concept was interesting, the book by noted author H. G. Wells likely handled it better.
There was a moment in the film though that rather stuck with me while watching it.  It was the final moment where main character Edward Douglas, played by noted actor David Thewlis, better known as Remus Lupin in Harry Potter and Sir Patrick in Wonder Woman, as well as the only one of the three leads in this film who feels like he’s trying, has to face off with the film’s antagonist and declare him God to the island.  As was the case with the film, it had a lot of discussion on man’s relationship with God, the desire to overthrow him, and then replace him and that moment encapsulated it quite well.  So I thought I’d take some time to discuss it here and the consequences of such desires.  Obviously there will be spoilers for the film so you have been warned.
For context to the event, this blogpost will start off with an overview of the film.  UN negotiator Edward Douglas is left stranded in the Java Sea after a plane crash before being rescued by Dr. Montgomery, played by Val Kilmer, and brought to the island of Dr. Moreau.  There, he meets Doctor Moreau, played by Marlon Brando, who has found a way to turn animals into humanoid creatures that can function, in theory, like real people.  During his experiments, Dr. Moreau believes he has created perfect people who can live in a utopian society where they are guided by key rules that they must follow in order to be sufficiently human (as well as being thoroughly drugged and implanted with devices to cause them pain when they step out of line).
Eventually, after several failed attempts by Edward to escape, the animals, led by the hyena-swine man, manage to rebel and kill Dr. Moreau along with the rest of his staff and those closest to him before declaring themselves leaders of the island.  Eventually, Edward is kidnapped by the rebels and forced to accept their superiority in front of the other animals.  However, he is able to outsmart them and defeat them before escaping the island to return to the world of man.
As a brief review before discussing the confrontation, the film plot may sound somewhat interesting.  The biggest issue is the execution as the film is horribly unfocused since it has multiple plotlines from Edward trying to escape to Montgomery slowly going insane out of jealousy of Dr. Moreau to Dr. Moreau’s utopia falling apart.  As a result, the film comes across as dull since nothing really stands out in terms of plotline since it’s always competing with other events.  Unsurprisingly, the book might have been a masterpiece if made use of these plot elements, but the film tragically could never find its footing and was weighed down with actors not giving the performances the film needed because they were weighed down by the nightmare that was the production.
Regarding the film’s theme though, it touches on the nature of God and those who would seek to dethrone him in society.  Notably, Dr. Moreau serves as God to his creations, which is why they call him father, and his island serves as his sort of Eden.  This is why the animals later rebel against him as they believe that doing so would give them the power they believe their creator has and would let them create themselves in their own image.

The desire to destroy Dr. Moreau in this story is similar to men who desire to overthrow God.  Often God’s rules as set by our creator are seen as archaic, arbitrary, and at odds with our desires which we believe will surpass his.  In the end, those who leave behind what they believe the shackles of religion do so believing they will find something else, ideally a better world designed in their own, man made image.

This brings us back to the final confrontation where the Hyena-swine has taken Edward and intends to use him to declare himself God in front of the other animals.  The Sayer of the Law, the sort of priest of Dr. Moreau, refuses to acknowledge the Hyena-Swine as God as the only God for him is his creator.  However, Edward instead responds by saying “You are all Gods” to the animals that had killed Dr. Moreau, much to the Sayer’s dismay.

The Hyena-Swine, thinking he’s won, tells Edward to say that to the other animals as though to show the legitimacy of the former’s reign.  Instead, Edward asks him what makes him any more the new leader than the other animals as all are equal and there were others just as capable as the Hyena-Swine who were also involved in killing Dr. Moreau.  In response, the animal man goes on a rampage and tries to kill the others before Edward defeats him.
Once the rebellion is over, Edward crafts a raft and returns to civilization.  He offers the Sayer to send someone back to help the animals, but the Sayer recommends against it.  The animal man knows that without the laws of Dr. Moreau, the animals will return to their original state and that that was what nature had always intended.  With that, David Thewlis leaves, knowing both that he has learned from his experience, and that he won’t have to return to the set again after the nightmare of a production.
This scene is actually deep as it shows the truth of men who try to declare themselves as God.  Just like the animals, all human being are equal, meaning that despite differences they have the same propensities towards corruption, sin, and failures.  Some may be more capable than others, but the idea that the rules don’t apply to them leads to pride, hubris, ego, and other synonyms.
One thing one of my Sunday school teachers always said was that there's a God shaped hole in our hearts and that without him we will try to replace it with something else.  Often, we try to shove our own interests to replace him, but we are one perspective among many and what works for us may not work for others.  In the end, man can never replace God because we are not morally superior nor inferior to his other men and thus incapable of reaching that status.  This brings us to the inevitable truth: that objective morality does not exist in this world without God.
Through his commandments and the teachings of Christ, God left man the path towards enlightenment and purpose, a way to better one’s and become more Christlike.  When we reject God’s vision, we inevitably become trapped in ideas that are ideologies of equal merit that will fail the same way we do.  For God is perfect, something to be imitated, and knows what is good.  Since the fall, man has been flawed and the things we create will be just as flawed, meaning just as likely to fall.
Lacking an objective morality that God provides, man will try to replace him with something inferior that is also just as likely to fall.  This is why G. K. Chesterton said “When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”  The end result is that like the animals, we resort to a phase of nihilism and purposelessness, destroying what separated us from animals and becoming the creatures we were made to rule over.
This theme is found repeatedly in the Book of Genesis, starting with Adam and Eve’s decision to eat from the tree of Knowledge.  They were told it would make them like Gods, when the only thing it did was make them aware of their brokenness and thus were cast out from the garden, the furthest thing from Gods they could have been.  Another story would be the tower of Babel where the people making it thought doing so would make them superior to God and instead resulted in them getting cursed to speak other languages.  Be it in the bible, or real world examples like the Cristero War, Godless Communism, or even in America where our society gets more depressed as it rejects God, the desire to replace God, to say “God is dead'' ends always the same with a river of blood and an utopia never arrived at.  The end result is always the same: the desire to replace God ends in failure every time.
The theme of the film does not justify the bad things about the film, but I still did find the film interesting.  It encapsulated the hubris of those that seek to replace God with themselves and the inevitability of what happens to a society without him.  Never forget, the guard rails of society exist for a reason, and there may be justification to go past them but you do so at your own peril.

12 Rules for Dealing with a Grudge

        Much to my chagrin, I’ve always struggled with letting things go.  Be it forgiveness of myself or of others, that can be a hard thing to ask when I’ve been hurt or upset.  That’s why I try to figure out how to deal with that and improve my handling when something bad happens again (as it inevitably will).
Since I know I can’t always control my emotions, I try to create a key series of rules to follow so that I don’t do things I’ll regret or make things worse.  Even if I can’t feel the greatest, knowing I have a plan can help me get through it and readjust.  So in this case, I thought I’d share my rules and see if they help anyone else.

1. “Sometimes, it is best to leave well enough alone” - Emotions can be hard to control.  If you can’t be cordial or respectful to that person and there is no benefit to continuing a relationship, it can be best to walk away.  Don’t simply ignore it, actively minimize it in your life until you forget it exists.
2. Learn from it and make it positive - Chances are you’ve learned something from it or can find a truth to it you can use in future relationships.  Ask yourself what it is you have learned and how you can use that to improve your life or the lives of others in the future.  Doing that will make your life better and reduce negative consequences for yourself and others from it.
3. Ask yourself what’s bothering you - Sometimes another person may only be the face of something that’s really bothering you.  Make sure your anger is correctly invested.
4. Don’t blame yourself - You’ve probably done things you regret that led up to what’s causing the grudge.  However, the other person did actions that upset you as well and the decisions you made likely made the most sense at the time.  If you really went in with the best of intentions, then harping on yourself is only going to make you angrier and promote the grudge so most importantly don’t try to put all the blame on yourself.
5. Find support - Always try to replace bad memories with good ones.  Find people who can get you through your bad times and try to focus more on a time with them than time with people you don’t get along with.  In the end, it will make your time more productive and get you through emotional strife.
6. Don’t spread gossip - Anything you do today can have a lasting impact on people in the future.  You can change somebody else’s opinion of that person or you can impact your relationship with them in ways you can’t imagine.  That person may change but what you spread behind their back will hound them for a long time, even if they aren’t the same person.  So try to speak neutrally about them and don’t use their name.  Just say “this person did this” or something to that effect.  Now, you may be more open to discussing that with family or very close friends who don’t know that person, but beyond that try not to say things that will last with that person longer than you will be angry at them.
7. Humanize and be honest about your opponent, but don’t praise them - The person you are angry at is likely flawed, and may have problems in their own life.  You don’t know what got them to that decision and you don’t know why they do the things they do.  Likely, the decisions they make may make sense to them at the time just as yours make sense to you at the time so they hopefully didn’t have bad intentions.  So remember that they’re flawed as well and have to deal with their own flaws more than you do.  However, don’t say nice things about them to mask your pain.  Doing so is not being honest about how you feel about them, and giving them praise you don’t give yourself will cause envy for what you give them.
8. Respect their independence - As a human being, another person has the full ability to make decisions of their own.  You can’t control them and trying to will make you into something bad.  However, they also bear responsibility for their mistakes, you don’t.  You won’t be held accountable when they do something you don’t like, they will.  So just being willing to accept that they will need to deal with the results of their actions whether it be positive or negative is on their shoulders, not yours.
9. Compare how you handle this grudge to a previous grudge - if you handle this one better than a previous one, that shows improvement.  Improvement should remind you you’re handling it better.
10. Pray for them, but never for your own benefit - God wants this for those we consider enemies.  We must want the best for them by his plan.  Praying for them both reminds us of that and lets us put that burden on the almighty who is always happy to deal with it in ways we can’t.  However, don’t ask God to change that person in ways to please you, ask him to do so in ways that please him.  He knows what they need and what we need so he is a better judge.  Asking him to change that person for yourself means you are putting your interests above God’s.  Asking him to enter that person's heart for their own benefit and God’s acknowledges that the end result you may still not like, but you will respect his decision, their independence, and hope good can still come from them.
11. Want them to get to Heaven - We are hopefully going to spend eternity in heaven, and God loves everyone so that means he loves the people we don’t.  We will be spending eternity with them then, but when their flaws and ours are gone so we won’t be fighting anymore.  Remember, God gets to decide who gets to heaven, and you don’t.  Acknowledging that means you will be with them at a point when all your mistakes are gone and theirs are too, so every petty disagreement will be behind us.  After all, hell is eternal and your anger at and memory of that person will fade long before hell’s wrath.  It then seems unfair that they should suffer for something that will be forgotten.  So never want that for someone else, and always want the best for all people.  For God always knows best, for all of us
12. Acknowledge you won’t live up to these rules - All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.  You will likely break your own rules and do things that violate them and you will regret it.  After all, man is naturally sinful due to original sin.  Be aware you will do that, but find ways to forgive yourself and make up for it.  Never forget, you are not perfect, but that’s not a reason to stop trying to be better.

These are my standards of how I try to deal with a grudge.  As 12 states, I don’t live up to them.  However, I believe that being aware will at least give me goals and ways to overcome my failings.  So while I try to move on from my own dissatisfaction, they give me guidance on what to do so that I don’t act on emotions I may regret later.  I hope any of these are useful in the future to you, the reader.

My Letter to the President

         To the surprise of no one and the chagrin of my girlfriend, I wrote a letter to the President.  That's right, I performed my patriotic duty and made my voice heard by mailing a letter.  Though I don't expect a response, I thought I'd share what I sent him here"

Dear Mr. President, 

 

I hope this letter finds you in good health.  You are no doubt aware our country is facing a time of extreme crisis and a need for direction.  Our people are very divided and that only seems to be getting worse by the day.  It is time for bold direction and a President to reach across the aisle to support legislation all Americans can get behind.  For that, I am asking you to reinstate former President George H.W. Bush’s ban on Broccoli from the White House. 

 

As you may know, your predecessor banned Broccoli from the White House and Air Force One in March of 1990.  The decision was well met by school children whose mothers had forced them to eat their greens and had shown solidarity with them and the many others who rightfully hate the awful vegetable but are too scared to admit it.  I believe if you bring back the ban, you will touch those same Americans again and show solidarity with the public.

 

For far too long the vegetative menace has haunted this great nation from the coast to coast.  It can be found in grocery stores, schools, local farmers markets, and anywhere our nation’s nutrition can be found.  It hides in the shadows, waiting for the opportunity to ruin any good meal.  People may have tried to mask its fowl taste by drowning it in cheese, but no amount of dairy can protect us from its spread. 

 

This is an excellent opportunity for you to take decisive action and show the American people where you stand on this important issue.  Remember that President Bush was a Republican and you are a Democrat so this is a perfect chance to show bipartisanship and unity.  In addition, it will show your respect for the office by bringing back a policy from your predecessor. 

 

I have full confidence that you will make the right decision and take this crucial action.  For far too long, the party has allowed this menace to ravage our society and it is finally time to defeat it.  If you do not take this, school lunches will be ruined forever and no shopper will be able to get groceries without the green terror lurking.  So I ask you on behalf of my friends and family, ban Broccoli from the White House and make this nation proud.

 

 

        Yes, I seriously mailed this to the President.  No, this isn't an April Fool's Day joke.  Just thought you all might enjoy.

Some Warning Signs in a Conversation

            Throughout my debates in college and high school, as well into my studies for communication, I've noticed certain patterns in conversations, debates, and arguments that show the person I'm talking to has no interest in what I'm saying and is just trying to dominate the conversation. I have found the best course of action in these kinds of conversation is to disengage with that person as nothing you say will motivate them as they have ceased to care what you have to say and are often looking for emotional validation. So here are warning signs to assure you it is best to drop the conversation and stop second guessing if you were to blame:

1. Calls for Unity-Usually there is a push to guilt the opponent to make them feel like they are an outsider and therefore the one causing the problem. Simple examples would be "can't we all just get along," "we don't have to do anything," or "this is too divisive."   The use of "We" is an extremely telling sign as unless it is in reference to another group (which can become the "appeal to the crowd" fallacy), using "we" to include the other speaker makes no sense if they're not addressing your interests or values.  Likely, what they are trying to do is to SUBTLY give off the impression that you are being divisive by questioning their set beliefs or goals.  Anyone who uses this is already treating you like an outsider or an other so tread lightly as they likely don't care about your interests and are trying to get you to submit to their's. 

2. Repetition-Few people are that original, but a person that keeps repeating their own statements or those of others may show signs of an inability to think critically, meaning they have clung to some key belief or thought and refuse to change from it.  One form would be repeating something that is mainstream common wisdom without being able to variate it. Now, most people of like mind may say similar things, but if you've heard their argument a million times and they can't variate it, there's a good chance they're just repeating someone else. Listen to how many of the same things they say that you may hear on the news, in circles they fly in, or or social media and see if they can even lightly deviate from that.  If they can't, they're just repeating what someone else told them and digging in their heels.  This means they won't change they're mind as they'd rather repeat the so called "common wisdom." Another sign of repetition is if they repeat themselves.  Chances are, they've thought about it a bunch and they're not actually addressing your concerns, they're dismissing your concerns to address whatever issue is in their head.  This is a sign they do not care and just want to practice their own soundbite, meaning you will never break through. 

3. Mockery-This is obviously a bad sign for any speaker, but there is a reason for mockery that's a sign you've probably won. If a person had an argument, they could say it and leave it at that, but usually they know they don't so they're belittling you to shut you up so they don't have to face your arguments. After all, if they are repeating themselves, they've already shown they can't think critically so it's safer to push you away so they don't have to face their own shortcomings. 

4. Non-sequiturs-Similar to mockery, it's also a sign your opponent has lost. Likely they can't address your issues so they try to change the conversation in an attempt to dodge an issue they can't address. Never let them change the conversation or else they will never face that reality.

5. If All Else Fails, the Moral Card Will be Played-This goes back to appeals for unity, but it is important to remember that they will question your morality to question your interest in doing "good". Once again, if their's is the superior decision, they shouldn't have to guilt you into supporting something, but the truth is their's isn't and they can't defend it besides repeat. Anyone who uses this is trying to control you and get you to submit. The best way for them to lose is to not give them that privilege. 

            So those are warning signs that the person your talking to will not change their opinion. The best option is to disengage, let them calm down, and maybe try again later if you care about their opinion or not bother if you don't. Either way, remember that if they use these five things, it isn't your fault and you should not feel bad they did. However, see to it that you don't use them yourself.