The Morality and Politics Surrounding Visiting Specific Theme Parks

[GooseOnTheLoose]

One such approach rather than a total ban that could have been taken was that when someone raises a topic that could become a multi-post debate on a “moral” or “political” aspect is that a simple post by a moderator could be made along the lines of “we recognise the importance of this issue. This thread is primarily for discussion of X. Please have further discussions about this specific issue in this different location”. The issue is still raised with direct context, the thread doesn’t then descend into repeated similar discussions and there is a dedicated space to have those discussions clearly signposted.

I have taken what I believe is quite the pragmatic approach with my most recent post in the Six Flags Qidyyia thread, having checked with the team that it's permitted.

I have hidden the political elements behind a "spoiler" tag, and included a trigger warning for anyone who wishes to avoid "political content". Any further discussion about my post will most likely have to continue here.

I feel that this is a more cohesive compromise, than a complete silo and I hope it may be enough for you to not feel pushed out.

Six Flags Quiddiya

The only way this gets beaten is if the UAE decide to engage in a coaster war with their neighbours. Dont see Six Flags (the real one) going anywhere near the scale of this thing given their financial state in America. Disney? Not a chance. Universal? Slightly more chance than Disney but still...

towersstreet.com

 

[Craig]

The posts here show why raising such issues and having such discussions within context is important and having them not being relegated to a side thread that can easily be ignored.

This isn’t a side thread? This is a dedicated topic that appears in the same forum as one of the main reasons this topic was created - Six Flags Qiddiya. It appears in people’s new posts feeds just as any other topic does too:


If people choose to ignore the topic, that’s completely their prerogative as an individual whether they choose to do so. I understand you personally may feel that it must be discussed in the same topic, but conversely many others don’t feel that way. If people that want to have a discussion specifically about the park and avoid discussion on the political issues, they have a home for that - just as those that do want to talk about it have a place too.

That doesn’t necessarily mean everyone is fully ignorant to it. Some may just want to avoid discussion altogether on theme park forum, whereas others may sometimes not have the headspace to delve into and read that discussion at certain times.

This forum will now have to consistently police “political” or “moral” on all relevant park and attraction threads and all aspects of said words and it is not clear who or how that will be done and what is acceptable or not. For example, a topic that easily and regularly descends into a “moral/political” minefield on here is disability provision for a ride/park.

Ultimately I don’t feel welcome in or see the point in a discussion forum community where people can’t freely raise relevant opinions within direct context on the issues of any park, attraction, event or incident in a lawful, reasonable, proportionate, relevant and respectful way.

One such approach rather than a total ban that could have been taken was that when someone raises a topic that could become a multi-post debate on a “moral” or “political” aspect is that a simple post by a moderator could be made along the lines of “we recognise the importance of this issue. This thread is primarily for discussion of X. Please have further discussions about this specific issue in this different location”. The issue is still raised with direct context, the thread doesn’t then descend into repeated similar discussions and there is a dedicated space to have those discussions clearly signposted

That’s precisely what we’ve done with the Six Flags Qiddiya discussion? We tried to allow both aspects of the discussion to continue, but it was clear off the back of the number of times that we’ve stepped in and the reports we received that that was no longer possible. As a result, we created this discussion to allow the debate to continue. As Goose has pointed out, where there is a need to reference things like the political situation in Saudi Arabia for questions like “Why is there not more POVs/footage?”, then referencing it is fine.

As you’ve mentioned disability/ride access pass discussion, that’s happened with that too. As disability discussion was being discussed substantially in general discussion topics, an individual topic was created to discuss things in depth. Disability discussion is still touched on in the General topics, but for more detailed discussion, that can take place in the dedicated topic.

There is nothing we will be able to do which will be 100% satisfactory to everyone. We’ve just done what we feel is the best to meet everyone in the middle.

With the greatest of respect, if you don't see the point, or feel welcome, move on.

I certainly don’t feel we need to be directly asking people to move on. I appreciate the feedback that golgactic is making and I’m more than happy to respond to it to explain why we have done what we’ve done.

 

[rob666]

...I certainly don’t feel we need to be directly asking people to move on. I appreciate the feedback that golgactic is making and I’m more than happy to respond to it to explain why we have done what we’ve done.

And there I was, trying to defend the forum, and putting my foot in it, again.

My bad.

The original poster had made the comment, twice.

 

[Poisson]

One such approach rather than a total ban that could have been taken was that when someone raises a topic that could become a multi-post debate on a “moral” or “political” aspect is that a simple post by a moderator could be made along the lines of “we recognise the importance of this issue. This thread is primarily for discussion of X. Please have further discussions about this specific issue in this different location”. The issue is still raised with direct context, the thread doesn’t then descend into repeated similar discussions and there is a dedicated space to have those discussions clearly signposted.

This topic is for exactly that? Mods can point the discussion here and let others talk about the actual park rather than specific morals behind it?

 

[Josh555]

For me theme parks, along with music and watching my football team play, are things I do in my (somewhat limited) own time, they cost a lot of money and they represent what I perceive to be the very best way to spend my own time.

But all of that comes as a package, and for me, the idea of a trip to a country which, even ignoring the moral/political issues, just seems like a thoroughly depressing place to spend time, totally nullifies any benefit from visiting the park itself, no matter how good it is.

You couldn’t pay me to visit Saudi Arabia, so the idea of a park with a higher roller coaster than anywhere else being enough to sway it is fanciful.

Given the people in charge of Saudi Arabia and the political motivation inevitably behind the park’s construction in the first place I hope with every fibre of my being that millions of people take the same view as me and the thing is shut down within 5 years.

All of the above said I genuinely pass no judgment on people who are happy to go; at the end of the day I’m going to a country run by Trump in 4 months to visit a theme park so you quickly get into the realms of whatabouttery and hypocrisy when you go down that route - each to their own, but I personally would delight in seeing the image laundering vanity project fail and provide some semblance of confirmation that you can’t just spend your way into overwriting everything that you’ve ever done (or continue to do) no matter how vile those things may be.

 

[DistortAMG]

As a 'developed' nation, the perogative being put forward here is quite stunning really, given our history, specifically, recent history. It is convenient to forget that I guess?

I do not agree with the regime of Saudi Arabia, or what it stands for. But, the general consensus seems like we are sat on a collective high horse, completely acting as if we are as a nation, a becon of light, the holy grail, the upper echelons of being a model nation on how to treat citizens of the world.

Less than two decades ago, we actively assisted in the brutal murder of over 66,000 innocent men, women and children, zero rights were given to them, they had no choice.

We still actively supply some of the world's most advanced weapon systems to some of the world's most violent nations, who have questionable human rights and morality issues. BAE systems Rail Gun being the latest and 'greatest'.

Our mighty and gigantic London financial institutions have many times, (BBC Panorama investigations being the latest) being found red handed as being some of the largest money laundering institutions on the planet. Funding organised crime, diabolical dictators and questionable nations on a gigantic scale. Nothing supports human rights better than supporting (on a monumental scale) the very things that suppress it.

We also all buy petrol, plastic based products and everything in between, one of the key enablers that has allowed countries like Saudi Arabi to build their rollercoaster in the first place.

Examples of a huge number. I do not for one minute support their regime over in Saudi, but the argument being put forward with the overarching theme that we are good and they are bad, could not be further from the truth. It is convenient to forget facts when trying to have a moral high ground or win an argument though I guess.

If we as a nation want morality and a balanced, fair view of visiting said nations, we best start looking closer to home first.

Given all that, get me on the next flight. Politics and questionable moral high grounds wont stop me from enjoying something. Not when we as a nation are kind of calling the kettle black when trying to point out what is right and what is wrong. We are in no position whatsoever to be doing that.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

As a 'developed' nation, the perogative being put forward is quite stunning really, given our history, specifically, recent history. It is convenient to forget that I guess?

I do not agree with the regime of Saudi Arabia, or what it stands for. The general consensus seems like we are sat on a collective high horse, completely acting as if we are as a nation, a becon of light, the holy grail, the upper echelons of being a model nation on how to treat citizens of the world.

"We did bad things, therefore we cannot criticise them for doing bad things."

Let's be absolutely clear. Acknowledging the UK's historical and current moral failings does not require us to give a free pass to a regime currently engaging in state sanctioned murder, slavery, and the suppression of basic human rights. Two wrongs do not make a right. They just make a world with twice as much suffering.

Less than two decades ago, we actively assisted in the brutal murder of over 66,000 innocent men, women and children, zero rights were given to them, they had no choice.

The Iraq War is a stain on our conscience. However, in 2003, over one million people marched on the streets of London to protest it. We have a free press that tore the government to shreds over it. We have the ability to vote those leaders out. In Saudi Arabia, tweeting a criticism of the King's economic policy gets you a 45 year prison sentence. Salma al-Shehab, a Leeds University student, was sentenced to 34 years for retweeting dissidents. There is a fundamental difference between a flawed democracy and an absolute theocracy.

We still actively supply some of the world's most advanced weapon systems to some of the world's most violent nations, who have questionable human rights and morality issues. BAE systems Rail Gun being the latest and 'greatest'.

We do indeed sell Typhoon jets to Saudi Arabia. That is abhorrent, but your argument seems to be "The UK government sells arms to Saudi Arabia, therefore I should personally go and give Saudi Arabia more money for a rollercoaster." You are not neutralising the immorality. You are compounding it.

Our mighty and gigantic London financial institutions have many times, (BBC Panorama investigations being the latest) being found red handed as being some of the largest money laundering institutions on the planet. Funding organised crime, diabolical dictators and questionable nations on a gigantic scale.

The existence of financial crime in the City is a failure of regulation, not a state sponsored objective. The very fact that Panorama can investigate and expose these institutions proves the difference. We shine a light on our corruption, we don't build a rollercoaster on top of it to distract the masses. Just because a banker in Canary Wharf lacks ethics does not grant you a moral carte blanche to hand your cash to a regime that dismembers journalists.

We also all buy petrol, plastic based products and everything in between, one of the key enablers that has allowed countries like Saudi Arabi to build their rollercoaster in the first place.

There is a significant distinction between unwilling participation in a globalised oil economy (buying fuel to get to work, because infrastructure demands it) and making an active, voluntary choice to fly to a regime specifically to validate their soft power propaganda project. One is a necessity of modern life and the other is a holiday.

Three examples of a huge number. I do not for one minute support their regime over in Saudi, but the argument being put forward with the overarching theme that we are good and they are bad, could not be further from the truth. It is convenient to forget facts when trying to have a moral high ground or win an argument though I guess.

As a gay goose, I am acutely aware that the UK has not always been a beacon of light. I am old enough to remember Section 28. I know that we chemically castrated Alan Turing. I know that our history is bloodied.

The critical difference, however, is that in the UK, we were allowed to fight for our rights. We marched, we lobbied, we protested, and we forced the law to change. In Saudi Arabia, homosexuality is punishable by death or flogging, and there is no mechanism for change because advocacy is illegal. To compare the two states as if they are equivalent is intellectually dishonest.

If we as a nation want morality and a balanced, fair view and morality of visiting said nations, we best start looking closer to home first.

We do. Constantly. Relentlessly. We have Public Inquiries that drag our leaders and institutions over the coals (Post Office, COVID, Grenfell). We have a Supreme Court that tells the Prime Minister when he is breaking the law. We have a press that exposes the corruption of our politicians. That is what a functioning democracy looks like. It is messy, it is flawed, but it is self correcting.

Given all that, get me on the next flight. Politics and questionable moral high grounds wont stop me from enjoying something. Not when we as a nation are kind of calling the kettle black when trying to point out what is right and what is wrong.

"Politics won't stop me from enjoying something" is the ultimate expression of privilege. For the women, migrant workers, and LGBTQ+ people in the Kingdom, "politics" isn't a debate on a forum. It is their lived reality.

If you want to go, go. Just don't try to intellectualise your desire to ride a rollercoaster into some sort of moral equilibrium. You are prioritising your entertainment over your ethics. Own it.

 

[Plastic Person]

As a 'developed' nation, the perogative being put forward is quite stunning really, given our history, specifically, recent history. It is convenient to forget that I guess?

I do not agree with the regime of Saudi Arabia, or what it stands for. But, the general consensus seems like we are sat on a collective high horse, completely acting as if we are as a nation, a becon of light, the holy grail, the upper echelons of being a model nation on how to treat citizens of the world. That horse is pretty high, step down.

I can't help but feel there's a lot of projection in this emotive post in regards to the idea that we are collectively "good" and the Saudi people are collectively, "bad".

I believe that the UK government are currently partaking in scandalous, shameful activity, including aiding and abetting genocide. As a British citizen, I'd rather it wasn't being done "in my name" and hope that those involved are ultimately brought to justice through the systems of law enshrined to perform that function, or at least voted out of government. I'm also realistic enough to understand how power works and can be corrupted, so I'm cynically prone to believing that isn't likely to happen, but that order - a function of a stable, collective democracy - exists, no matter how flawed.

This just isn't true of Saudi Arabia at this point in time, so why would I support the economy of this government, and why would the perceived hypocrisy of topping up a car with unleaded petrol in Europe affect that? Moreover, individuals have the right to make choices that are considered and reflect their ethics without accusations of double-standards simply for inevitably existing within a global economic system. It's a completely reasonable expression of power, and the alternative is just stasis, politically and philosophically.

To flip your argument; does the shame of our own country's historical and present-day atrocities present a free pass to at least passively endorse the civil corruption taking place elsewhere? Is visiting Six Flags Qiddiya actually, therefore, an act of transgression itself? I am not sure that this is the right conclusion, and the idea that "politics won't stop me enjoying something" is probably a more honest admission, at least.

 

[DistortAMG]

"We did bad things, therefore we cannot criticise them for doing bad things."

Let's be absolutely clear. Acknowledging the UK's historical and current moral failings does not require us to give a free pass to a regime currently engaging in state sanctioned murder, slavery, and the suppression of basic human rights. Two wrongs do not make a right. They just make a world with twice as much suffering.

The Iraq War is a stain on our conscience. However, in 2003, over one million people marched on the streets of London to protest it. We have a free press that tore the government to shreds over it. We have the ability to vote those leaders out. In Saudi Arabia, tweeting a criticism of the King's economic policy gets you a 45 year prison sentence. Salma al-Shehab, a Leeds University student, was sentenced to 34 years for retweeting dissidents. There is a fundamental difference between a flawed democracy and an absolute theocracy.

We do indeed sell Typhoon jets to Saudi Arabia. That is abhorrent, but your argument seems to be "The UK government sells arms to Saudi Arabia, therefore I should personally go and give Saudi Arabia more money for a rollercoaster." You are not neutralising the immorality. You are compounding it.

The existence of financial crime in the City is a failure of regulation, not a state sponsored objective. The very fact that Panorama can investigate and expose these institutions proves the difference. We shine a light on our corruption, we don't build a rollercoaster on top of it to distract the masses. Just because a banker in Canary Wharf lacks ethics does not grant you a moral carte blanche to hand your cash to a regime that dismembers journalists.

There is a significant distinction between unwilling participation in a globalised oil economy (buying fuel to get to work, because infrastructure demands it) and making an active, voluntary choice to fly to a regime specifically to validate their soft power propaganda project. One is a necessity of modern life and the other is a holiday.

As a gay goose, I am acutely aware that the UK has not always been a beacon of light. I am old enough to remember Section 28. I know that we chemically castrated Alan Turing. I know that our history is bloodied.

The critical difference, however, is that in the UK, we were allowed to fight for our rights. We marched, we lobbied, we protested, and we forced the law to change. In Saudi Arabia, homosexuality is punishable by death or flogging, and there is no mechanism for change because advocacy is illegal. To compare the two states as if they are equivalent is intellectually dishonest.

We do. Constantly. Relentlessly. We have Public Inquiries that drag our leaders and institutions over the coals (Post Office, COVID, Grenfell). We have a Supreme Court that tells the Prime Minister when he is breaking the law. We have a press that exposes the corruption of our politicians. That is what a functioning democracy looks like. It is messy, it is flawed, but it is self correcting.

"Politics won't stop me from enjoying something" is the ultimate expression of privilege. For the women, migrant workers, and LGBTQ+ people in the Kingdom, "politics" isn't a debate on a forum. It is their lived reality.

If you want to go, go. Just don't try to intellectualise your desire to ride a rollercoaster into some sort of moral equilibrium. You are prioritising your entertainment over your ethics. Own it.

I will comment properly later on both yours and @Plastic Persons replies. Long night shift last night, time for rest.

Before I go, yes, I will not let any political regime get in the way of me enjoying things, enjoying life itself. Why should I? Why should anyone infact? In exactly the same way as say an African Elephant, or a Great White shark doesn't let the politics of the world get in the way either. The argument could be said they do not understand it, agreed, but the fact remains, they enjoy their life, without a care or more accurately, a single clue of 'our world'. That doesn't make them privileged. If a human doesn't understand the political world, but enjoy going to these exotic places, it would be a stretch calling them privileged too. Ignorance can be bliss.

As a human, I also have to pay to survive on this planet. You can rarely even get access to basic needs such as water without paying money, the only species on the planet that has to do so may I add. If the two above things make me 'privileged' then so be it. If the above are privileged things, then the majority of living beings are also privileged.

 

[Plastic Person]

Before I go, yes, I will not let any political regime get in the way of me enjoying things, enjoying life itself. Why should I? Why should anyone infact? In exactly the same way as say an African Elephant, or a Great White shark doesn't let the politics of the world get in the way either. The argument could be said they do not understand it, agreed, but the fact remains, they enjoy their life, without a care or more accurately, a single clue of 'our world'. That doesn't make them privileged. If a human doesn't understand the political world, but enjoy going to these exotic places, it would be a stretch calling them privileged too. Ignorance can be bliss.

Fair enough @DistortAMG . This is a heated and unusually existential topic for this forum, with numerous differing perspectives on occasionally intersecting wavelengths.

Nonetheless, I admit that I could never have predicted that you held the trump card of politically identifying as a shark. I'll let myself out.

 

[DistortAMG]

Fair enough @DistortAMG . This is a heated and unusually existential topic for this forum, with numerous differing perspectives on occasionally intersecting wavelengths.

Nonetheless, I admit that I could never have predicted that you held the trump card of politically identifying as a shark. I'll let myself out.

If you cannot understand the difference between identifying as something versus using an animal as an example of conveying a way of thinking, two massively different things, then don't worry, Ive already left, I left the door open for you on the way out.

 

[Plastic Person]

I was just trying to lighten up the thread. Of course, I can see where you're coming from conceptually. But the idea that human beings don't have ethical responsibilities because sharks aren't aware of politics is genuinely too far out there for my own belief system to process. And I've taken acid at Butlins.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

If you cannot understand the difference between identifying as something versus using an animal as an example of conveying a way of thinking, two massively different things, then don't worry, Ive already left, I left the door open for you on the way out.

I mean there's nothing wrong with identifying as an animal... I'd quite like to believe that no one in this thread takes issue with such a hypothetical situation.

I will comment properly later on both yours and @Plastic Persons replies. Long night shift last night, time for rest.

Before I go, yes, I will not let any political regime get in the way of me enjoying things, enjoying life itself. Why should I? Why should anyone infact? In exactly the same way as say an African Elephant, or a Great White shark doesn't let the political **** of the world get in the way either. The argument could be said they do not understand it, agreed, but the fact remains, they enjoy their life, without a care or more accurately, a single clue of 'our world'. That doesn't make them privileged. If a human doesn't understand the political world, but enjoy going to these exotic places, it would be a stretch calling them privileged too. Ignorance can be bliss.

As a human, I also have to pay to survive on this planet. You can rarely even get access to basic needs such as water without paying money, the only species on the planet that has to do so may I add. If the two above things make me 'privileged' then so be it. If the above are privileged things, then the majority of living beings are also privileged.

First and foremost, get some rest. I know all too well that night shifts can leave one feeling like a zombie (or perhaps a shark?), so I appreciate you taking the time to reply even when exhausted.

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding here of what the word "privilege" actually means in this specific sociological context. It is a misunderstanding that often causes British hackles to rise because we immediately conflate it with class, wealth, or even a silver spoon.

When I say that "ignoring politics to enjoy a rollercoaster" is the ultimate privilege, I am not making an assumption about your bank balance, your background, or how hard you work to survive.

Privilege, in this context, is the unearned advantage of safety.

It is the privilege of having a passport that allows you to enter and leave the Kingdom freely. It is the privilege of being the "right" gender, or sexuality, or holding the "right" beliefs, which means you are not criminalised for your mere existence. It is the privilege of knowing that if you visit, your biggest worry is whether the coaster is operating, not whether your employer will confiscate your passport.

The politics you are choosing to ignore isn't a debate about tax bands or bin collections. It is the systemic oppression of other human beings. The privilege lies in the fact that you can ignore it because it doesn't happen to you. You can fly in, scream on a ride, and fly out. The people building it, or the women living there, cannot.

Regarding your animal analogy, I must gently push back. Elephants and Great White Sharks operate on instinct and biological imperative. They do not have the cognitive capacity to understand geopolitics, human rights, or moral philosophy. They do not have agency.

You are a human being. You have agency. You have the capacity for critical thought and moral reasoning. To compare your decision-making process to that of a shark is to abdicate your humanity. A shark eats a seal because it must eat to survive. You are choosing to fund a regime to ride a rollercoaster.

You mention that paying for water is a burden we all share. That is true, but there is a huge difference between participating in capitalism to survive (buying water, paying rent) and voluntarily exchanging your disposable income for a luxury entertainment product. One is survival and the other is a choice.

Ignorance may be bliss, but when the information is readily available, ignorance is a choice. Having the safety to make that choice is, by definition, a privilege.

Get some sleep!

 

[Josh555]

As a 'developed' nation, the perogative being put forward here is quite stunning really, given our history, specifically, recent history. It is convenient to forget that I guess?

I do not agree with the regime of Saudi Arabia, or what it stands for. But, the general consensus seems like we are sat on a collective high horse, completely acting as if we are as a nation, a becon of light, the holy grail, the upper echelons of being a model nation on how to treat citizens of the world.

Less than two decades ago, we actively assisted in the brutal murder of over 66,000 innocent men, women and children, zero rights were given to them, they had no choice.

We still actively supply some of the world's most advanced weapon systems to some of the world's most violent nations, who have questionable human rights and morality issues. BAE systems Rail Gun being the latest and 'greatest'.

Our mighty and gigantic London financial institutions have many times, (BBC Panorama investigations being the latest) being found red handed as being some of the largest money laundering institutions on the planet. Funding organised crime, diabolical dictators and questionable nations on a gigantic scale. Nothing supports human rights better than supporting (on a monumental scale) the very things that suppress it.

We also all buy petrol, plastic based products and everything in between, one of the key enablers that has allowed countries like Saudi Arabi to build their rollercoaster in the first place.

Examples of a huge number. I do not for one minute support their regime over in Saudi, but the argument being put forward with the overarching theme that we are good and they are bad, could not be further from the truth. It is convenient to forget facts when trying to have a moral high ground or win an argument though I guess.

If we as a nation want morality and a balanced, fair view of visiting said nations, we best start looking closer to home first.

Given all that, get me on the next flight. Politics and questionable moral high grounds wont stop me from enjoying something. Not when we as a nation are kind of calling the kettle black when trying to point out what is right and what is wrong. We are in no position whatsoever to be doing that.

This kind of argument tends to descend into tit for tat whatabouttery because it is up to the individual where they draw the line. The point is not that the UK is perfect, its that for many people there are very clear reasons why they do not feel comfortable visiting Saudi Arabia, for example many people who are homosexual do not feel safe, many people with friends who are homosexual do not feel comfortable visiting because of the attitude in Saudi Arabia toward their friends There are also people who are homosexual who have no issue visiting - the point being that everyone is different and what is fine for one person is not for another - what, however, is unarguable is that there are clear and tangible reasons for why some people do not feel comfortable going and refuting those reasons with a list of things the UK have done (which the people who are addressing will in all likelihood have had no involvement in) is not going to cut it.

It isn’t about good vs bad, as I said in my post above, I’m going to the USA in 4 months and I find the leader there deplorable. I’m not asking anyone not to do anything because of the political context surrounding it as I said in my post. I don’t blame anyone for those choices - I am not going because I don’t want to ever go to Saudi Arabia, it’s about as far away from a holiday destination as from somewhere that I’d like to go as you’re likely to find (whereas USA I love if it weren’t for the government).

My point is I’m clear about why they built this park, it isn’t because they’ve just decided to build this ridiculous park off the cuff - it’s because they are laundering their own reputation because they’ve spent decades publicly executing people, openly murdering journalists and discriminating against people based on their gender and sexuality, it’s the same reason why they bought Newcastle United and it’s the same reason that they’re suddenly massively interested in sport.

It is also nothing against the people of Saudi Arabia, this isn’t a xenophobic attack against the people of a certain country, it’s a very clear statement as to how I feel about the regime running it and their motivations for suddenly spending billions of pounds on industries which for decades they had no interest in.

 

[Bert2theSpark]

I’m someone who events has studied events in the Middle East from GCSE to Undergraduate level, as well as having family who have been involved across various parts of the Middle East to profound impact. I feel like I might be able to a lot to this conversation, to the point where being a theme park nerd becomes anecdotal.

I think a point that’s been lightly been touched but not properly discussed in this topic is the political need for economic diversification in countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Whilst in the likes of China, and now South America is to establish theme parks to try and escape the ‘middle income’ trap.

Theme Parks are a sign of economic resilience and prosperity. They are clearly state building tools to keep the status quo within those countries. We’ve seen the need for state building and economic resilience within the Middle East, as the Status Quo isn’t always optimal and more often than not morally dubious. However, like we’ve seen in Afghanistan and Libya in recent decades, sometimes it’s better for people’s quality of life to have an authoritarian but stable government over instability and destruction. These are citizens of a country where they have no input in their government’s decisions, but for the majority of people, their livelihoods depends on them.

There’s also the argument that from many Westerners going out to work in the Middle East and using how these developments are liberalising their societies to some degrees. Examples like letting women being able to drive, although I’d admit without lived experience of the whole continent, I’m limited in commenting on how significant this is, especially when we get to talking about an entire continent.

Going back to theme parks, I think the establishment of theme parks to support their local populations is great, more people are getting to have the experiences we all love on here. However, when they come to international travel destinations, I don’t think the Middle Eastern countries have the same appeal to a vast majority of international tourists as the like of North America, Europe and Japan, and I think the moral component is a significant part of that.

Personally, I don’t think these parks would appeal to me as things stand, and I don’t think the scale of the offerings would necessarily change that. The ‘moral’ component is a big component of it, but nothing stays the same over the passage of time. The best case scenario from the perspective of ‘the West’ is that these countries will become more established and liberalise, but that takes time and when it becomes acceptable to the point it’s ‘normalised’ will be another point of contention between people…

 

[Benjsh]

It's a very interesting time for Saudi Arabia. They obviously have huge advantages over oil reserves and seemingly infinite resources. However they aren't infinite at all and the day is going to arrive at some point in the future when the rest of the world finally turns its back on oil. Once that happens.....Saudi will no longer be the force they currently are and they know this so are looking to diversify their nation's offerings.

It's in that light that they have decided to turn to sport and tourism. First it was LivGolf and then the boxing takeover and then came the Saudi Pro football wave and even acquiring WWE. The F1 is coming soon and obviously there is World Cup 2034.

Now they are venturing into Theme Parks too with Six Flags being the flagship with at least 10 more parks in the pipeline or so they say.

They are making strides I guess to get into the 21st century but the starting point is clearly a lot further back than rest of the world. Women for example in Saudi have only had the ability to vote since 2015 incredibly. Not that the nation hold regular and consistent elections like most of the world do but the point still stands.
They have a LONG LONG way to go though to entice me there despite the obvious temptation for FF.

 

[Bowser]

It's in that light that they have decided to turn to sport and tourism. First it was LivGolf and then the boxing takeover and then came the Saudi Pro football wave and even acquiring WWE. The F1 is coming soon and obviously there is World Cup 2034.

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 ****”.

 

[Benjsh]

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 ****”.

Forgive me.....I havent watched WWE in nearly years and it was still WWF back then. I read they had recently invested significantly into the business too rather than just hosting two live events.

 

[Bowser]

Forgive me.....I havent watched WWE in nearly years and it was still WWF back then. I read they had recently invested significantly into the business too rather than just hosting two live events.

No. They have a long term partnership which is for the twice annual events. They’re hosting WrestleMania in 2027 which is the company’s biggest annual event and the first time it has even taken place outside of North America.

There was a story several years ago they were purchasing the company so that might have been what you saw but that didn’t materialise.

As I say, they pay a lot of money for the events (rumoured to be $50m a show) so I suppose that could be considered significantly investing.

 

[Benjsh]

No. They have a long term partnership which is for the twice annual events. They’re hosting WrestleMania in 2027 which is the company’s biggest annual event and the first time it has even taken place outside of North America.

There was a story several years ago they were purchasing the company so that might have been what you saw but that didn’t materialise.

As I say, they pay a lot of money for the events (rumoured to be $50m a show) so I suppose that could be considered significantly investing.

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.