• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

The Morality and Politics Surrounding Visiting Specific Theme Parks

Burbs

Burbs

TS Team
Favourite Ride
Steel Vengeance
On multiple occasions now, certain topics have descended into discussion of the politics and personal morals of going on trips to particular theme parks around the world. It can be quite draining to have immediately serious and sometimes accusatory responses to enthusiastic posts. Ultimately, the enthusiasm of our weird and wonderful hobby is 99% of the time about the theming and attractions at parks rather than who owns it or the country it’s in.

Therefore we have created this thread to allow these serious discussions to continue to take place, whilst keeping the dedicated park/attraction topics more light-hearted.

Many thanks!
 
I hope that anyone who wants to go to said parks has a lovely time and trip. I haven’t made any posts referenced and It’s wrong to make accusatory posts towards people and those should be appropriately moderated.

Basic human rights is not political.

Though some people might find wider context posts draining, I’d argue its more draining, for example, to constantly have to check whether a country could potentially kill or imprison you just for being who you are.

All this forum is doing by stating these opinions, having this policy and hiding any wider context within this post is fulfilling and normalising the culture washing purpose that are behind these parks.

As such I won’t participate in this forum any longer.
 
golgactic said:
I hope that anyone who wants to go to said parks has a lovely time and trip. I haven’t made any posts referenced and It’s wrong to make accusatory posts towards people and those should be appropriately moderated.

Basic human rights is not political.

Though some people might find wider context posts draining, I’d argue its more draining, for example, to constantly have to check whether a country could potentially kill or imprison you just for being who you are.

All this forum is doing by stating these opinions, having this policy and hiding any wider context within this post is fulfilling and normalising the culture washing purpose that are behind these parks.

As such I won’t participate in this forum any longer.
Click to expand...
Everyone is of course entitled to their views on this, but I don’t think it’s fair to imply that discussion on this has been censored or “hidden” by the moderators. This thread is every bit as publicly accessible as any other on the forum, and the moderators are allowing deeper political discussions to occur within it if people wish to use that right.

I understand that many people on here feel strongly about this sort of thing, and they are within their rights to talk about it if they feel the need, but the thing we are fundamentally here to discuss is the attractions themselves, and there will be many people on this site who don’t want to get bogged down in political discussions centring around the hobby or deep discussions around morals and personal philosophy. There are a lot of people with strong political opinions and moral stances on here who want to discuss them in great depth, but there are equally many others who just want to get away from politics and the often dreary and downbeat “real world” and check in on how their fun hobby is progressing and express enthusiasm and critique of the parks themselves and their contents. As much as I maintain a passing interest in the camaraderie of politics, I dare say I include myself in this group and say that I’m someone who doesn’t have overly strong political views, generally likes to depoliticise this hobby and uses the forum as breathing space from the trials and tribulations of everyday life.

It is a tough one, but I think the moderators have come up with the ideal compromise. If the moderators shut down the more serious discussions entirely, they run the risk of being accused of censorship by people who want to have those discussions. But equally, if they allow every deeper discussion to occur within the main park/attraction threads, the same points arguably end up being repeated ad nauseam and people who do just want to have enthusiastic discussions about the attractions themselves may end up feeling stifled by heavy political debate.

With how the moderators have done it, both groups can be satisfied; those who want to have more serious political discussions can discuss them here, but those who don’t don’t have to come into this thread and can stick to the discussions in the main park/attraction threads. Don’t get me wrong, I haven’t personally agreed with every single decision made by the moderation team over the 8 years I’ve been here, but I don’t have to and in any walk of life, it’s very rare that you will personally agree with everything. Generally, I think the team does an excellent job of straddling difficult lines and making pragmatic compromises that suit the majority of users.
 
Last edited:
I can appreciate the optimistic vision of the moderating team to maintain TS as a relatively depoliticized space, but our "weird and wonderful hobby" is no longer as niche as it once was. As observed above, states guilty of enormous human rights abuses are using theme park developments to 'culture wash', or in this case, 'coaster wash' their reputations. The inevitable result is that some of the most influential, unavoidable people in our sphere - vloggers, influencers and others keen for clicks - are flocking to cover it.

I have been a theme park enthusiast since childhood and have never particularly sought radical or even particularly progressive political views within this community. However, the intersection of problematic states investing in projects like Six Flags Qiddiya, mixed with the prominence of social media figures becoming willing tools to normalize what is undoubtedly a capital-P political development, is too much for me to overlook completely.

With the threat of new legislation looming large, we're also repeatedly not asked not to pass comment on these private individuals, presumably so the forum does not devolve into a Tattle-esque gossip channel. Again, it's a respectable stance, but it feels increasingly unrealistic when their own politics, or shameless lack thereof, are part of their very public persona.

As a reader and contributor here, I agree with the assessment that the discussion has largely remained excellent, largely due to thoughtful moderation that has created a space that has felt more akin to the 'old internet'. However, it does feel like that pesky 'real-world' has bled into the discourse in recent years, creating some difficult philosophical friction for an independent forum.

This feels inevitable. We are surely passing through a fragile time in human history, and politics is not just "camaraderie"; it's an enginer to reshape life and society as we know it, sometimes even extending to our coasters. For better or worse, there's only so far you can turn away from that, especially in a fandom that has historically not only aligned with marginalized groups, but was once all but driven by them.
 
Last edited:
This approach is probably the best approach possible. Keeps the park topics in countries with questionable human rights without the circular discussion about rights. Also allows for guilt free ridiculing of parks in those countries when they do something daft on a theme park level and vice versa it allows serious discussion without interruption about pretty themeing.

Also helps for those of us who can't comment on certain things due to real life, but like talking theme parks.
 
I am afraid I cannot agree that this is a "pragmatic compromise". It feels more like sanitisation for the comfort of the comfortable.

We are being told that we must move our concerns about slavery, genocide, and state sanctioned murder to a designated containment zone so that others can enjoy their breathing space and look at construction updates without being reminded of the human cost.

The argument that people come here for escapism is the very definition of privilege. It must be nice to be able to treat politics as a dreary topic you can switch off when it becomes inconvenient. The migrant workers in Saudi Arabia cannot do this,, nor the women treated as second class citizens, nor the LGBTQ+ individuals living under regimes that would see them dead, for them politics isn't a hobby or a topic of camaraderie. It is their existence. They do not get to depoliticise their lives.

If you find the discussion of human rights abuses bogging down your enjoyment of a coaster, perhaps you should ask yourself why you are so comfortable supporting a project explicitly designed to sportswash those abuses?

Six Flags Qiddiya is not a theme park that happens to be in Saudi Arabia. It is a state project funded by the Public Investment Fund to diversify the economy and rehabilitate the image of a regime. It is a political entity. Puy du Fou is not just a history park, it is a vehicle for a specific ethno-nationalist ideology. To discuss these parks without discussing the politics is to discuss a fiction.

If you are so desperate to avoid the reality of politics in your hobby, there is a very simple solution: stop following projects that are inherently political.

There are hundreds of theme parks in the world. You can discuss Paultons, or Efteling, or Liseberg, or Dollywood without ever having to confront a human rights abuse or a revisionist history agenda. Those spaces exist. They are unproblematic.

If you actively choose to enter a thread about a Saudi Mega Project, or a park run by a far-right (or far-left) politician, you forfeit the right to complain when people point out the reality of what is being built. It is akin to walking into a drag show and complaining that the discussion of gender politics is ruining your appreciation of the makeup. You entered the space; you chose the topic. You don't get to demand that everyone else blinds themselves to the context just because it ruins your "vibe".

It is not those of us who are morally conscious that are the problem; it is those who are wilfully blind.

I appreciate that if I wish to continue participating in this community, I must begrudgingly accept the decision of the moderators and keep my beak shut in the "wrong" threads. I will respect the rules of the pond.

However, I will not pretend that this decision should be celebrated as "balanced" or "pragmatic". It is neither. It is a decision which disproportionately favours those who wish to remain wilfully ignorant, at the expense of those who refuse to disconnect the product from the suffering that created it.

Edit: I want to be absolutely clear. I do not begrudge anyone the choice to visit these parks. Visiting Qiddiya does not make you "evil", nor does it strip you of your moral standing. We are all capable of holding two conflicting thoughts in our minds simultaneously, it is part of the messy business of being human. I would never target or harangue an individual for simply wanting to ride a record breaking coaster. However, whilst you are perfectly entitled to your cognitive dissonance, you are not entitled to enforce it upon the rest of us. You are allowed to make your own choices, but you should not be allowed to control the narrative to soothe your own conscience.
 
Last edited:
GooseOnTheLoose said:
I am afraid I cannot agree that this is a "pragmatic compromise". It feels more like sanitisation for the comfort of the comfortable.

We are being told that we must move our concerns about slavery, genocide, and state sanctioned murder to a designated containment zone so that others can enjoy their breathing space and look at construction updates without being reminded of the human cost.

The argument that people come here for escapism is the very definition of privilege. It must be nice to be able to treat politics as a dreary topic you can switch off when it becomes inconvenient. The migrant workers in Saudi Arabia cannot do this,, nor the women treated as second class citizens, nor the LGBTQ+ individuals living under regimes that would see them dead, for them politics isn't a hobby or a topic of camaraderie. It is their existence. They do not get to depoliticise their lives.

If you find the discussion of human rights abuses bogging down your enjoyment of a coaster, perhaps you should ask yourself why you are so comfortable supporting a project explicitly designed to sportswash those abuses?

Six Flags Qiddiya is not a theme park that happens to be in Saudi Arabia. It is a state project funded by the Public Investment Fund to diversify the economy and rehabilitate the image of a regime. It is a political entity. Puy du Fou is not just a history park, it is a vehicle for a specific ethno-nationalist ideology. To discuss these parks without discussing the politics is to discuss a fiction.

If you are so desperate to avoid the reality of politics in your hobby, there is a very simple solution: stop following projects that are inherently political.

There are hundreds of theme parks in the world. You can discuss Paultons, or Efteling, or Liseberg, or Dollywood without ever having to confront a human rights abuse or a revisionist history agenda. Those spaces exist. They are unproblematic.

If you actively choose to enter a thread about a Saudi Mega Project, or a park run by a far-right (or far-left) politician, you forfeit the right to complain when people point out the reality of what is being built. It is akin to walking into a drag show and complaining that the discussion of gender politics is ruining your appreciation of the makeup. You entered the space; you chose the topic. You don't get to demand that everyone else blinds themselves to the context just because it ruins your "vibe".

It is not those of us who are morally conscious that are the problem; it is those who are wilfully blind.

I appreciate that if I wish to continue participating in this community, I must begrudgingly accept the decision of the moderators and keep my beak shut in the "wrong" threads. I will respect the rules of the pond.

However, I will not pretend that this decision should be celebrated as "balanced" or "pragmatic". It is neither. It is a decision which disproportionately favours those who wish to remain wilfully ignorant, at the expense of those who refuse to disconnect the product from the suffering that created it.

Edit: I want to be absolutely clear. I do not begrudge anyone the choice to visit these parks. Visiting Qiddiya does not make you "evil", nor does it strip you of your moral standing. We are all capable of holding two conflicting thoughts in our minds simultaneously, it is part of the messy business of being human. I would never target or harangue an individual for simply wanting to ride a record breaking coaster. However, whilst you are perfectly entitled to your cognitive dissonance, you are not entitled to enforce it upon the rest of us. You are allowed to make your own choices, but you should not be allowed to control the narrative to soothe your own conscience.
Click to expand...
This post and others like it is exactly the reason why this dedicated topic is needed.

Post after post, each several paragraphs long, going over the same points that have been covered several times before adds absolutely nothing to discussion. It feels of late that this forum is being taken over as a free soapbox for those that want to make every single discussion about politics. I'm not learning anything new here and frankly I'm tired of having this political rhetoric constantly shoved down my throat by a handful of individual members on what used to be a diverse and informative discussion forum.

I take issue with bring called wilfully blind because I've asked for certain discussions to take place in specific parts of the forum. I'm not against open discussion about sometimes controversial issues or decisions in the relevant park threads but it's becoming ridiculous how so many threads are being derailed by cyclical, tedious and overly long rants.

This thread has been set up for people to use for the purpose of discussing politics. Either use it, or find a different forum to set up your soapbox in.
 
NuttySquirrel said:
This post and others like it is exactly the reason why this dedicated topic is needed.

Post after post, each several paragraphs long, going over the same points that have been covered several times before adds absolutely nothing to discussion. It feels of late that this forum is being taken over as a free soapbox for those that want to make every single discussion about politics. I'm not learning anything new here and frankly I'm tired of having this political rhetoric constantly shoved down my throat by a handful of individual members on what used to be a diverse and informative discussion forum.

I take issue with bring called wilfully blind because I've asked for certain discussions to take place in specific parts of the forum. I'm not against open discussion about sometimes controversial issues or decisions in the relevant park threads but it's becoming ridiculous how so many threads are being derailed by cyclical, tedious and overly long rants.

This thread has been set up for people to use for the purpose of discussing politics. Either use it, or find a different forum to set up your soapbox in.
Click to expand...
I think the point is that it’s an inherent privilege to divorce parks like Six Flags Qiddiya from the politics they represent, it’s frustrating to see whose who claim to be part of an inclusive community completely ignoring that for their own comfort
 
tayspru said:
I think the point is that it’s an inherent privilege to divorce parks like Six Flags Qiddiya from the politics they represent, it’s frustrating to see whose who claim to be part of an inclusive community completely ignoring that for their own comfort
Click to expand...
Like I said, I don't have a problem with people discussing controversies to a proportionate degree, but when it descends into sanctimonious moral bashing that obliterates the possibility of any more reasoned discussion I have no choice but to disengage. It's just so damned exhausting. Frankly, I don't even have time to read it all and if I did I wouldn't learn anything I didn't know anyway.
 
NuttySquirrel said:
Like I said, I don't have a problem with people discussing controversies to a proportionate degree, but when it descends into sanctimonious moral bashing that obliterates the possibility of any more reasoned discussion I have no choice but to disengage. It's just so damned exhausting. Frankly, I don't even have time to read it all and if I did I wouldn't learn anything I didn't know anyway.
Click to expand...
What’s the reasonable explanation for being ok with human rights violations? Because there’s a big rollercoaster ?
 
As my own phrasing has been called out in subsequent posts, I feel I should apologise for my use of the term “camaraderie” to describe politics and admit it was perhaps a poor choice of words on my part that overly trivialised the issue.

However, my general feeling remains that I am in support of this decision by the moderators. I won’t add too much more, as I don’t want to inadvertently dig myself into a deep hole, but I will say that I agree with the points raised by @NuttySquirrel and would add that I am a strong supporter of keeping this site (or the main park-based discussions at least; the politics discussions in News, Life and Sport are fair game) focused around the thing that unites us; the enthusiasm for and interest in theme parks and attractions. As much as we have our spirited disagreements and debates at times, we on here have far more that unites us than divides us, and I’m sure I can’t be the only one who’d prefer to focus on the things that unite us. Politics, I feel, only serves to divide. I take an interest (if a slightly backseat one) in current affairs and goings on in politics and if I wasn’t now trying to forge a career in a field that would require me to be politically restricted, I would happily partake in political debates from time to time, but I, and I’m sure this goes for many others, don’t come on here for constant political discussion and value the site as a bright and breezy environment where we can escape from real-world worries. We all have so much in common, and I feel it’s a shame to focus overtly on the things that divide us.
 
NuttySquirrel said:
This post and others like it is exactly the reason why this dedicated topic is needed.

Post after post, each several paragraphs long, going over the same points that have been covered several times before adds absolutely nothing to discussion. It feels of late that this forum is being taken over as a free soapbox for those that want to make every single discussion about politics. I'm not learning anything new here and frankly I'm tired of having this political rhetoric constantly shoved down my throat by a handful of individual members on what used to be a diverse and informative discussion forum.

I take issue with bring called wilfully blind because I've asked for certain discussions to take place in specific parts of the forum. I'm not against open discussion about sometimes controversial issues or decisions in the relevant park threads but it's becoming ridiculous how so many threads are being derailed by cyclical, tedious and overly long rants.

This thread has been set up for people to use for the purpose of discussing politics. Either use it, or find a different forum to set up your soapbox in.
Click to expand...
It is rather difficult to argue that political rhetoric is being "shoved down your throat" when you have voluntarily clicked on a thread titled "The Morality and Politics Surrounding Visiting Specific Theme Parks" to read it.

You are currently standing in the designated containment zone complaining that it contains the very thing it was built to contain. No one forced you to enter this thread; you sought it out. If you find the discussion here tiresome, cyclical, or "exhausting," the solution is remarkably simple: do not click on the thread.

If my posts (or those of others) are too long, tedious, or annoying for your personal taste, I would gently direct you towards the forum's Ignore function. It is a wonderful tool that will instantly curate your experience, hiding the "rants" you have no time to read, without you needing to demand that other users stop posting them.

You accuse others of "sanctimonious moral bashing," yet there is a profound arrogance in suggesting that because you personally don't learn anything new from a discussion, or because you find it exhausting, the discussion therefore "adds absolutely nothing" and should stop. Suggesting that your personal threshold for boredom should dictate the boundaries of acceptable discourse for the entire community is, if I may say so, quite the sanctimonious position in itself.

I have stated I will respect the moderators' decision to keep this discussion in this specific thread. I am doing exactly that. If you do not wish to engage with the politics, do not enter the politics thread.
Matt N said:
As my own phrasing has been called out in subsequent posts, I feel I should apologise for my use of the term “camaraderie” to describe politics and admit it was perhaps a poor choice of words on my part that overly trivialised the issue.

However, my general feeling remains that I am in support of this decision by the moderators. I won’t add too much more, as I don’t want to inadvertently dig myself into a deep hole, but I will say that I agree with the points raised by @NuttySquirrel and would add that I am a strong supporter of keeping this site (or the main park-based discussions at least; the politics discussions in News, Life and Sport are fair game) focused around the thing that unites us; the enthusiasm for and interest in theme parks and attractions. As much as we have our spirited disagreements and debates at times, we on here have far more that unites us than divides us, and I’m sure I can’t be the only one who’d prefer to focus on the things that unite us. Politics, I feel, only serves to divide. I take an interest (if a slightly backseat one) in current affairs and goings on in politics and if I wasn’t now trying to forge a career in a field that would require me to be politically restricted, I would happily partake in political debates from time to time, but I, and I’m sure this goes for many others, don’t come on here for constant political discussion and value the site as a bright and breezy environment where we can escape from real-world worries. We all have so much in common, and I feel it’s a shame to focus overtly on the things that divide us.
Click to expand...
I know you well enough by now to know that there was no malice intended in your phrasing, just perhaps a difference in perspective, there is no need to apologise.

However, I must push back gently on the notion that "politics only serves to divide" and that we should focus solely on "what unites us".

"Unity" that is achieved by silencing uncomfortable topics isn't unity; it is just quiet. It creates a hegemony where the status quo is maintained because challenging it is seen as "divisive".

When we talk about a park like Six Flags Qiddiya, the politics aren't an optional add on that we are forcing into the conversation to cause division. The politics are the concrete foundation of the project. The "enthusiasm for theme parks" that unites us is being weaponised by a state actor to distract from the things that divide us (like human rights).

To say "let's just focus on the coasters" is to do exactly what the regime wants us to do. It isn't a neutral act. It is an act of compliance.

I understand the desire for a "bright and breezy" escape from the real world. We all need that. We must also recognise that for many people, the labourers building these escapes, or the minorities living in the countries hosting them, there is no escape. They don't get to switch off the "real world" because it is happening to them.

It is easy to find common ground when you agree to ignore the difficult terrain.
 
So this was never intended to be a discussion about the decisions of the team, but since we’re at that point I’ll respond. I’m somewhat repeating a lot of the things I’ve said in other topics here, but I feel the need to summarise the reasoning behind the decision again.

What you as a member may wish to read is completely different to that which another member may wish to read. We have a spectrum of opinions for what people want to discuss when it comes to things like Six Flags Qiddya. We have those who want to to point out their moral objections to it, then we have those who want to completely remove themselves from that discussion and talk about the park being built, perhaps even look forward to visiting. We then have people who sit in the middle of that and are aware of the Saudi’s human rights record and perhaps want to follow the progress of the attraction. But, despite this they’re unlikely to ever visit because of the country’s human rights record.

Briefly putting my team hat away for a second for an example as a reader of the forum, I’d put myself in the latter category. I’m interested in reading about how Six Flags Qiddya is progressing, what this ridiculous over the top ride is going to be like and seeing updates about it. I’m an enthusiast and want to see how new parks are coming along wherever they are and what new rides are coming on the scene. Perhaps it’ll spur something on elsewhere? Maybe the hardware will be replicated in another park? It’s the same when I’ve followed the likes of parks in Dubai or China for example.

However, that doesn’t mean I’m wilfully ignorant to what the Saudi Arabian government are doing and have been doing for a long time. Some will know I’m a Newcastle fan - so I’m possibly more aware than some. I still go to games because I had no say in who owns us and it’s a team I supported long before the PIF bought us. I have and still do read plenty about Saudi Arabia and their human rights issues and have my own opinions on it, but I don’t necessarily feel that I want to obtain or discuss those at length in a theme park topic. I still read plenty about it, still talk about it - but it’s not necessarily on TowersStreet.

Whilst perhaps in an ideal world my opinions would mean I’d avoid anything Saudi Arabia are involved in, I don’t feel that’s a realistic possibility. That said, just like China or Dubai, I don’t see me ever visiting Saudi Arabia and Six Flags Qiddya as a result, despite taking an interest in seeing how it progresses.

Team hat back on now. The forum is a place where we make changes based on feedback - this isn’t just something we do because of our own personal opinions - we try and make decisions to please as many people as possible. The problem we were seeing in things like the Six Flags Qiddya and Puy Du Fou UK topics is that posts about things like the ownership’s views were being made repeatedly, which ended up with the topic often delving into political discussion and subsequent outright arguments. You essentially end up with two opposing discussions - those who want to talk about the political side of things, and others that just want to talk about the parks/attractions themselves. It’s simply not sustainable to have both things going on in one topic, especially when it’s a subject that some are not wishing to participate in and often resulted in spirited debate to say the least.

So we had a decision to make. Keep things the same, outright remove all political discussion, or meet in the middle and have a dedicated topic for it. Based on the number of reports we received from these topics in comparison to others, keeping things the same wasn’t an option. Removing all political discussion wasn’t really something we were a fan of either. It’s still an important subject that should have a space, and there are people on the forum who want to participate in that discussion and wish to point those issues out. As a result, we went down the middle and this is where we’ve ended up.

As @Matt N has correctly pointed out, we have not hidden discussion. This topic is in a public facing forum and going by the number of replies and likes to posts - plenty of people are reading it. There are a also a large number of posts which have remained in topics like Six Flags Qiddya where the likes of human rights issues are pointed out. I know the decision we made will not please everyone, but we’re trying to meet everyone halfway so that everyone has the ability to discuss and read what they want to.

I would politely request that this topic is used for serious discussion about things like Saudi Arabia creating theme parks, or the personal views of other attraction owners such as Puy Du Fou. It is not a place for people to criticise the views of others for not wishing to participate in that discussion and choosing to be excited about a new theme park. Conversely, it’s also not the place to criticise others about what are their own genuine concerns for human rights. We have made changes off the back of feedback to allow people to avoid such discussion if they wish to, so I would advise not posting in the topic if you do not wish to participate.

As mentioned at the start, there’s a spectrum of people’s own personal views both on the subject and on what they’d like to read on a theme park forum. My simple ask is that everyone respect each other’s views and keep things civil. Please avoid participating in this topic of the park topics if you’re unable to abide by that request. I’d also remind people that if they do not enjoy reading the posts of a member, as a last resort you can utilise the ignore function to prevent those posts showing.
 
Craig said:
So this was never intended to be a discussion about the decisions of the team, but since we’re at that point I’ll respond. I’m somewhat repeating a lot of the things I’ve said in other topics here, but I feel the need to summarise the reasoning behind the decision again.

What you as a member may wish to read is completely different to that which another member may wish to read. We have a spectrum of opinions for what people want to discuss when it comes to things like Six Flags Qiddya. We have those who want to to point out their moral objections to it, then we have those who want to completely remove themselves from that discussion and talk about the park being built, perhaps even look forward to visiting. We then have people who sit in the middle of that and are aware of the Saudi’s human rights record and perhaps want to follow the progress of the attraction. But, despite this they’re unlikely to ever visit because of the country’s human rights record.

Briefly putting my team hat away for a second for an example as a reader of the forum, I’d put myself in the latter category. I’m interested in reading about how Six Flags Qiddya is progressing, what this ridiculous over the top ride is going to be like and seeing updates about it. I’m an enthusiast and want to see how new parks are coming along wherever they are and what new rides are coming on the scene. Perhaps it’ll spur something on elsewhere? Maybe the hardware will be replicated in another park? It’s the same when I’ve followed the likes of parks in Dubai or China for example.

However, that doesn’t mean I’m wilfully ignorant to what the Saudi Arabian government are doing and have been doing for a long time. Some will know I’m a Newcastle fan - so I’m possibly more aware than some. I still go to games because I had no say in who owns us and it’s a team I supported long before the PIF bought us. I have and still do read plenty about Saudi Arabia and their human rights issues and have my own opinions on it, but I don’t necessarily feel that I want to obtain or discuss those at length in a theme park topic. I still read plenty about it, still talk about it - but it’s not necessarily on TowersStreet.

Whilst perhaps in an ideal world my opinions would mean I’d avoid anything Saudi Arabia are involved in, I don’t feel that’s a realistic possibility. That said, just like China or Dubai, I don’t see me ever visiting Saudi Arabia and Six Flags Qiddya as a result, despite taking an interest in seeing how it progresses.

Team hat back on now. The forum is a place where we make changes based on feedback - this isn’t just something we do because of our own personal opinions - we try and make decisions to please as many people as possible. The problem we were seeing in things like the Six Flags Qiddya and Puy Du Fou UK topics is that repeated posts about things like the ownership’s views were being made repeatedly, which ended up with the topic often delving into political discussion and subsequent outright arguments. You essentially end up with two opposing discussions - those who want to talk about the political side of things, and others that just want to talk about the parks/attractions themselves. It’s simply not sustainable to have both things going on in one topic, especially when it’s a subject that some are not wishing to participate in and often resulted in spirited debate to say the least.

So we had a decision to make. Keep things the same, outright remove all political discussion, or meet in the middle and have a dedicated topic for it. Based on the number of reports we received from these topics in comparison to others, keeping things the same wasn’t an option. Removing all political discussion wasn’t really something we were a fan of either. It’s still an important subject that should have a space, and there are people on the forum who want to participate in that discussion and wish to point those issues out. As a result, we went down the middle and this is where we’ve ended up.

As @Matt N has correctly pointed out, we have not hidden discussion. This topic is in a public facing forum and going by the number of replies and likes to posts - plenty of people are reading it. There are a also a large number of posts which have remained in topics like Six Flags Qiddya where the likes of human rights issues are pointed out. I know the decision we made will not please everyone, but we’re trying to meet everyone halfway so that everyone has the ability to discuss and read what they want to.

I would politely request that this topic is used for serious discussion about things like Saudi Arabia creating theme parks, or the personal views of other attraction owners such as Puy Du Fou. It is not a place for people to criticise the views of others for not wishing to participate in that discussion and choosing to be excited about a new theme park. Conversely, it’s also not the place to criticise others about what are their own genuine concerns for human rights. We have made changes off the back of feedback to allow people to avoid such discussion if they wish to, so I would advise not posting in the topic if you do not wish to participate.

As mentioned at the start, there’s a spectrum of people’s own personal views both on the subject and on what they’d like to read on a theme park forum. My simple ask is that everyone respect each other’s views and keep things civil. Please avoid participating in this topic of the park topics if you’re unable to abide by that request. I’d also remind people that if they do not enjoy reading the posts of a member, as a last resort you can utilise the ignore function to prevent those posts showing.
Click to expand...
I appreciate the detailed response and the transparency regarding the decision making process. Managing a community with such divergent views is an unenviable task, and I do not envy the balancing act required to keep the peace.

Whilst I appreciate the Newcastle United analogy, I do feel there is a fundamental distinction to be drawn.

Your team is a historic institution with deep community roots that existed long before the Public Investment Fund arrived. You, as a lifelong fan, were effectively captured by the takeover. You didn't choose the owner; the owner bought something you already loved. The moral dilemma there is thrust upon you, and walking away means abandoning a part of your identity and community that predates the regime's involvement.

Six Flags Qiddiya (and the wider project) is fundamentally different. It is a greenfield project. It is being birthed into existence by the PIF specifically for the purpose of Vision 2030 and soft power projection. It has no history. It has no pre-existing community. To follow and support Qiddiya is to engage directly with a project created by the regime, for the regime. We aren't inheriting this park; we are choosing whether or not to applaud its construction. The moral calculus is distinct.

That being said, I accept the logic regarding the administrative burden. If the threads were descending into cyclical arguments that made them unreadable for those just wanting to see a track piece, then a separation is a logical, if slightly sanitising, solution.

If this is the designated space for the "serious discussion," then I shall keep my contributions here. I shall endeavour to keep my beak out of the construction threads, unless, of course, the concrete itself commits a war crime.
 
GooseOnTheLoose said:
Your team is a historic institution with deep community roots that existed long before the Public Investment Fund arrived. You, as a lifelong fan, were effectively captured by the takeover. You didn't choose the owner; the owner bought something you already loved. The moral dilemma there is thrust upon you, and walking away means abandoning a part of your identity and community that predates the regime's involvement.

Six Flags Qiddiya (and the wider project) is fundamentally different. It is a greenfield project. It is being birthed into existence by the PIF specifically for the purpose of Vision 2030 and soft power projection. It has no history. It has no pre-existing community. To follow and support Qiddiya is to engage directly with a project created by the regime, for the regime. We aren't inheriting this park; we are choosing whether or not to applaud its construction. The moral calculus is distinct.
Click to expand...
I agree there is a difference and you have a personal opinion similar to mine that the club has existed long beforehand. However, there are others who have a different opinion where if the likes of Saudi Arabia get involved in something that you give money to or utilise - then that is outright wrong. It doesn’t matter how long it existed for beforehand, the fact you are supporting them in some way is not acceptable and as a person you must walk away.

I also agree with you that the Six Flags project is ultimately the theme park equivalent of sports-washing. Between that and the human rights issues that exist in the country, it’s precisely why as an individual I won’t be visiting. However, the interest in the project and the attractions is still there for me and I want to follow it and see how it pans out, despite not intending to give any sort of money to it.

This is where you and I have a difference of opinion, with yourself seeing that interest as supporting the project, for others such as myself I don’t see that as supporting it, but I do want to see how it develops and how it affects the wider industry. I along with others on the forum enjoy reading and discussing that, despite not necessarily wishing to delve into the politics of it at the same time. I’m still fully aware the issues exist, I still want to occasionally participate in discussion about it (as I am right now), but with everything going on in the world right now - occasionally it’s nice to just step away and talk parks and coasters. That’s what we’re trying to facilitate with the changes we’ve made.

I think that’s the thing that I’m keen to point out. Between outright supporting the project and thus the Saudi government, or being fully against it and not touching anything that the PIF are involved in, there’s a substantial number of people who sit somewhere along that scale. For some people there’s an assumption that any interest indicates they are in support of the project and subsequently the regime, for others it’s just taking an interest in attractions which are a huge hobby to us and part of our lives. I really do get the strength of feeling against the project, particularly the large percentage of the community who are LGBTQ+ and it’s precisely why I’m keen for this topic to exist. However, I do feel the need to point out that talking about the progression of the park does not necessarily equate to being “ok with human rights violations“. Ultimately I think it’s safe to say pretty much everyone on this forum is not ok with that, but everyone has differing opinions of how they choose to demonstrate that. My ask is just that people respect that a little more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top