If you're at the point of accusing people that they didn't actually mean what they said and instead had a secret agenda to slander all your views that they dishonestly disguised as a single criticism, that speaks for itself, I think.
Well I think you have an abusive and manipulative personality to engage in as much bad faith as you have. Anybody can go back and read what you wrote and what I wrote. You're trying to cover your tracks because you know that I'm right, but you don't want to lose face.
The race of the mermaid doesn't have to be logical, the only important thing for that character is that she's a good singer -- and she's one of the best. Besides, neither of us have seen the movie, who knows what kind of hoops they'll jump through. It hasn't escaped my notice that all of Ariel's sisters are of different races and their names are being changed to coincide with the 7 seas, apparently. There's still a very real possibility that they'll induce some sort of logic to put paid to this line of thought.
Not that they needed it.
Like, sorry, but I *cannot* believe that Disney has so little faith in its films that from a CONCEPTUAL level, before a frame has been shot or even a character has been cast that they decide amongst themselves that it's imperative to stack the deck and cast someone solely for the color of their skin. If this was a plan that they were taking, wouldn't they have done it with any of the other remakes that came out while Little Mermaid was stuck in its four years of development hell? Cause I still see a white Alice, a white Aurora, a white Belle, a white Cinderella
Ariel's sisters all being different races makes even less sense, but sure, whatever. Did Triton have seven different wives, then? I'm sorry, but that's just silly. As for the logic of why Ariel would need to be white, I counter with, why does she need to be black? If the racial aspect doesn't matter, then why bother? If you want to believe that the only reason they cast a black woman to play Ariel really was just because she was the absolute best singer and best actress, then you can believe that if you want, but I think we both know that wasn't the reason. As for the reason why they're only starting to do it now, I would chalk that up to the greater prevalence of identity politics in entertainment discourse right now. When Alice in Wonderland and Cinderella came out, this type of discourse wasn't as salient as it is today, and movie studios hadn't found a way to use manufactured outrage as a marketing tool the way they do now. As for Beauty and the Beast, they DID try to do it there, but with the fake "gay" background characters—they marketed that heavily, only for it to not even register in the movie, and they edit out what little you could see when they released it in China, showing how cynical they actually are about this stuff. The executives at Disney aren't stupid. They know very well that the live action remakes aren't critically well received, and nostalgia baiting only takes you so far with audiences for so long. Eventually, you have to mix it up a bit to lure audiences into the theater to see a movie they wouldn't otherwise see, and taking advantage of political outrage is a really effective way of doing that. They don't always resort to it of course—Lion King made a ton of money based purely on nostalgia points—but it is a common tactic.
As for the movie itself, I feel comfortable basing my expectations on the past lineup of live action remakes. So far, they've batted a fat zero in terms of quality, and absolutely nothing they've put out has led me to believe this movie will be any better. If it turns out to be amazing, I'll eat my words, but I think we both know that this is going to be like the other remakes—visually bland, filled with nostalgic callbacks, and almost narratively indistinguishable from the original. I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up being almost shot-for-shot like Beauty and the Beast and Lion King were.