The Morality and Politics Surrounding Visiting Specific Theme Parks

Benjsh said:

Dont be shocked if we see Universal Studios Saudi Arabia within the next decade.

Click to expand...

Already under consideration.

Benjsh said:

Thanks for the info.

50m a show seems a lot, no? Although I have no idea what they earn on a typical PPV these days to be fair.

Very much seems like investment by stealth then if they are overpaying. Had no idea Wrestlemania was heading out there either. Is that a first for outside North America? I presume it must be?

Dont be shocked if we see Universal Studios Saudi Arabia within the next decade.

Click to expand...

It is not quite investment by stealth, but it is sportswashing by megaphone.

There is a distinct difference between buying equity in a company (investing) and paying a vendor an astronomical fee for a service (marketing). The Saudi General Entertainment Authority is essentially paying a hosting fee, akin to a city hosting the Olympics, but annually.

They aren't buying the company they are buying the product. They are buying the legitimacy that comes with a global brand broadcasting "Welcome to the beautiful city of Riyadh" to millions of homes worldwide, whilst conveniently glossing over the less photogenic aspects of the regime. The $50 million per show isn't an overpayment in their eyes, it's a marketing budget. It is cheaper than a war and cleaner than an embassy incident.

Bowser said:

Just to clarify on this, they do not own WWE. They do pay them a LOT of money to hold two events a year in the country.

For full transparency in the 7 years since they’ve been doing this they’ve moved from not allowing women to attend or perform on the shows to allowing both and with equal representation. The women do however have to modify their appearances as traditionally many wear bikini style outfits or similar. The men have free reign to perform in their underwear.

Also in this time, all previous objectors to performing have now acquiesced, including Sonya Deville an openly homosexual wrestler and CM Punk, a vocal LGBT rights supporter who previously (and notoriously) publicly stated participants could “suck a blood money covered ****”.

Click to expand...

Acquiesced is a very polite way of saying found their price.

We have seen this play out recently with Jordan Henderson. A man who built his entire reputation on being a vocal ally to the LGBTQIA+ community, wearing rainbow laces and armbands, right up until the moment a Saudi cheque cleared. Suddenly, his values became flexible. He didn't change the regime, but the regime bought his silence.

The participation of specific LGBTQIA+ performers does not signal that the Kingdom is suddenly OK with the gays. It signals that the regime is willing to create a temporary, hermetically sealed bubble of Western tolerance for the duration of a broadcast, provided the cameras are rolling.

This selective tolerance serves to highlight the calculated cruelty of the regime. Allowing a Western woman to perform, or a gay wrestler to enter the ring without consequence, demonstrates that their oppression is a choice, not an immutable religious necessity. They can suspend these rules when it suits their international image or economic goals. That they choose to enforce them so brutally against their own citizens, the women who are still guardianshipped, the LGBTQIA+ individuals facing capital punishment, proves that the cruelty is the point.

We must also remember that the existence of a person from a marginalised group engaging with, or supporting, an oppressor does not validate the oppressor. There were gay men who opposed same sex marriage. There are women who vote against reproductive rights. Caitlyn Jenner exists.

One person's willingness to take the cash does not represent progress for the collective. It represents a payout for the individual.

GooseOnTheLoose said:

One person's willingness to take the cash does not represent progress for the collective. It represents a payout for the individual.

Click to expand...

The delusional grift that often accompanies the decision to take said cheque winds me up more than anything. At least one of the influencers very prominently reporting from SFQ has responded to some fairly good-natured criticism of his participation with the notion that a win for them is a win for us all against those pesky, nebulous ‘haters’; “Who could believe that me, just an x from y, could have come this far?!?”

In the case of the recent Comedy Festival in Saudi, a common defence was that the country “is trying to change”, but I suppose I’m old-fashioned enough to believe you begin with basic human rights and work backwards to a twenty-minute spot from Jimmy Carr.

Plastic Person said:

The delusional grift that often accompanies the decision to take said cheque winds me up more than anything. At least one of the influencers very prominently reporting from SFQ has responded to some fairly good-natured criticism of his participation with the notion that a win for them is a win for us all against those pesky, nebulous ‘haters’; “Who could believe that me, just an x from y, could have come this far?!?”

Click to expand...

Quite.

Goose has mentioned Henderson, which as a Liverpool fan I can tell you that his decision to take the Saudi coin cost lost him a huge amount of favour with our fan base. Another example is Gary Neville, a man who professes to be left wing, yet took the Qatari money to work as a pundit during the World Cup - his argument was that these kinds of events will see attitudes in the country change over time and that he was being a part of that - my argument is that change tends to only happen under pressure and whilst Qatar/Saudi Arabia are successfully hosting world events with world stars agreeing to endorse them, there is no pressure and therefore no impetus for anything to change. Why would they improve workers rights? They’ve just hosted the World Cup successfully without doing that, they’ve just had Neville essentially endorse them as is.

The reality is that they have obscene money to offer and they’ll be successful in bribing a good many people to drop their morals. Some of those individuals, like Neville, will be intelligent enough to come up with convincing the world reasons as to why they’ve accepted the bribe; others, like Tommy Fury will come out with less convincing reasoning (I think he basically said everyone was nice to him so it must be fine, no, really) but ultimately the motive behind it is the same and it isn’t being a part to promote a change in attitude in the country in question.

Did think of this thread seeing yesterday’s US news. As the country increasingly becomes a pariah state I’m curious if people will be changing their plans or opinions on visiting the parks there, be it for moral, safety or other reasons?

Has already been stated in the serious stuff topic I think.

Boycott Orlando.

I’m being somewhat cautious in my plans for LA this September, my concern somewhat helped by the fact I’ll be remaining in the “bubble” that is Disney and Universal. I don’t terribly wish to get caught up in civil war over there.

I do know of many who have chosen not to visit America since T***p solely due to their gender expression

There are still, in theory, enough checks and balances, state by state, that visiting the USA isn't a comparable proposition to flying into Saudi Arabia.

I am still avoiding it under the current administration. The much tighter surveillance and security in relation to free expression on social media is a disconcerting barrier, and not something I wish to entertain myself.

Bowser said:

Did think of this thread seeing yesterday’s US news. As the country increasingly becomes a pariah state I’m curious if people will be changing their plans or opinions on visiting the parks there, be it for moral, safety or other reasons?

Click to expand...

I’m going to Orlando in April, not really worried.
I’m highly doubt they’ll be any interest in me drinking beer and going to theme park so I’m sure it will be fine.

Bowser said:

Did think of this thread seeing yesterday’s US news. As the country increasingly becomes a pariah state I’m curious if people will be changing their plans or opinions on visiting the parks there, be it for moral, safety or other reasons?

Click to expand...

It is a valid question and one that requires us to apply a degree of nuance regarding the federal versus state systems in the US, a distinction which does not exist in the absolute monarchy of Saudi Arabia.

However, there is another critical distinction regarding the flow of capital that we are in danger of overlooking.

Six Flags Qiddiya is the State. It is a project wholly owned and developed by the PIF, the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia. The Chairman of the PIF is the Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman. When you buy a ticket to Qiddiya, you are handing your money directly to the regime. The park exists explicitly to serve the state's geopolitical strategy.

Disneyland is not the State. The Walt Disney Company is a publicly traded corporation beholden to its shareholders, not the White House. Donald Trump does not sit on the board of Disney. He does not direct their creative strategy. In fact, Disney spent a considerable amount of time and money recently fighting the Governor of Florida in court over the "Don't Say Gay" legislation.

Visiting a US park supports a corporation (which has its own ethical baggage) and yes, you pay sales tax which indirectly funds the government, but visiting Qiddiya supports the regime directly. The park is the government's project.

That doesn't negate the safety concerns regarding visiting the US. @tayspru is absolutely correct, for trans and gender non-conforming individuals, Florida is becoming a hostile environment regardless of who owns the theme parks. The "Disney Bubble" offers no legal immunity from state law, as the Reedy Creek dispute famously demonstrated.

@Plastic Person is right that it is not yet comparable to Saudi Arabia. You can still stand outside the White House and hold a placard calling the President a fucktard without being immediately disappeared into a black site. The mechanisms of protest and legal challenge, however strained, still exist.

However, the gap is narrowing.

The border entry requirements for the US are already draconian. They reserve the right to demand access to your digital devices and social media accounts upon entry. If your digital footprint contains sentiments they now deem "un-American", entry can be refused. That is a form of surveillance and censorship that feels uncomfortably familiar to anyone watching the Gulf.

For me, the decision comes down to safety and complicity. I would not currently feel safe travelling to Florida. I would feel safer in California, but I acknowledge that my tax dollars would still contribute to a federal administration I find abhorrent.

However, buying a churro in Anaheim puts money in Bob Iger's pocket. Buying a churro in Qiddiya puts money in MBS's pocket. Those are not quite the same transaction.

Josh555 said:

I’m going to Orlando in April, not really worried.
I’m highly doubt they’ll be any interest in me drinking beer and going to theme park so I’m sure it will be fine.

Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct. The authorities will have precisely zero interest in you.

That is exactly what we mean when we discuss privilege.

You are safe not because your activities are mundane, but because the legislation currently being enacted in Florida does not target you. You fit the profile of the acceptable tourist.

If you were a trans person needing to use a public restroom while drinking that beer, or a woman experiencing a medical complication with a pregnancy during your trip, you might find the state takes a very sudden, very intrusive interest in your existence.

Enjoy your holiday. It is a luxury to be able to visit a place and only have to worry about the queue times.

GooseOnTheLoose said:

You are absolutely correct. The authorities will have precisely zero interest in you.

That is exactly what we mean when we discuss privilege.

You are safe not because your activities are mundane, but because the legislation currently being enacted in Florida does not target you. You fit the profile of the acceptable tourist.

If you were a trans person needing to use a public restroom while drinking that beer, or a woman experiencing a medical complication with a pregnancy during your trip, you might find the state takes a very sudden, very intrusive interest in your existence.

Enjoy your holiday. It is a luxury to be able to visit a place and only have to worry about the queue times.

Click to expand...

Indeed.

To be clear I’d argue that I’m not a target both because my actions are mundane and because of the fact that I’m in a privileged position of going under the radar given I’m a white heterosexual male.

The law on bathroom use for trans people currently I believe extends ‘only’ to government buildings (does include airports), so most people should be fine once out of the airport and I can’t see Disney or Universal being difficult about this kind of thing although I can’t appreciate the anxiety. The fact that the law is in place at all is ******** but I am only highlighting the details as it is relevant to how someone would enjoy their holiday.

As much as anything else one of the reasons I don’t envisage any issues is because I’m going to a state that votes Republican, Trump and his goons seem to attack left leaning states so I can’t imagine Florida will feel any different from how it has done in the past.

I'd say the current issue with Trans people and bathrooms will be more down to the idiots who are "policing" the situation themselves rather than any law put in place.

Mean I'd no intention of visiting there with a toddler anyway but the current political climate makes it a far easier pill to swallow.