A Lazy Day at Waldameer 5/20/2011

Waldameer, to me, has always had a bit of that "carny" vibe, anyway. Not so much as, say, Conneaut Lake, but it's there.

Like I said, I agree that there are consequences involved with people's choices (FYI, I do not have full sleeve tattoos) but that "family park" reasoning for something that someone doesn't like, is bogus.

While we're at it, extreme body building is a form of body modification, but there's no policy against that anywhere.

That's because the practice has much less social stigma. Whether you like it or not, amusement parks are businesses, and so long as they don't discriminate on the basis of race, gender, religion, ethnicity, age, or (in some states) sexual orientation, they can make whatever choices they want in the employees they hire.

Which begs the question, should there be state or federal guarantees of equality on the basis of skin imagery or piercings?

That's still not my issue though - the point is, complaining under the guise of "this is a family park" gets REALLY old.

Sometimes, I'm pretty sure coaster fans think they have to think a certain way in order to be accepted.

Examples include: Six Flags sucks, things that interfere with the ability to marathon favorite coasters to not belong, GP is stupid/evil/doesn't "get it", Kinzel is old, etc..

It just seems to me like a grab for acceptance that usually never has any relevance. Maybe it's because I'm always the cynic that goes against the flow, and likes to have contradictory opinions (usually because they're actually my real opinion and not just me trying to conform to the "enthusiast standard"). Again, that's just me in my sleep-deprived and cranky state.

Well sure, herd mentality and 'groupthink' exists in any community. It's in the evolved nature of humans. And it's desirable to confront those convenient little boxes we like to imprison our thoughts. So more power to ya.

Of course, sometimes common wisdom is correct. Six Flags (at one time) really did suck, in terms of its operations, cleanliness and the attitude of its employees. I don't think there's any debate about that. Likewise, at one time, tattoos and piercings really were pretty much the province of sailors, criminals, and the artistically avant-garde.

Clearly, that's not true anymore. There is higher (and still increasing) acceptance of the habits -- particularly among Gen Y...or whatever the heck they call the current young generation. But this hasn't filtered into the older generations as much, and I wonder how much it will ever will -- or if it does, how many decades it will take.

I remember back in the seventies, the talk was that so many young people smoked weed, once they got into power it would be swiftly legalized. Well, those folks have been in charge for a while now, and full legalization is still years or decades away.

Raven-Phile said:
That's still not my issue though - the point is, complaining under the guise of "this is a family park" gets REALLY old.

Tattoos, extreme piercings (and I guess certain hair styles to lesser degrees) are associated with things that aren't overly family friendly.

For instance, in a Peanuts or Nickelodeon area of a park, parents seem to have a certain image of the person who should be attending to the rides and their kids.

Society's problem? Perhaps, but many parks seem to feel that they have an obligation to provide a certain type of staff member.

There's a reason why kids TV presenters are usually squeaky clean, at least on camera anyway. If they came on screen with a mo-hawk, full sleeve ink and 23 facial piercings, people wouldn't be happy. Fact.

Well, I think most of the kids would be fine with it. It's the parents who would get squeamish. Which is the point.

And that's a slippery slope. It's my opinion that it's a half-click away from expecting that non-choice appearance has something to do with the person, where suddenly it's OK to assume that a black person will mug you or an Asian person is good at math. Or an Indian person works at Microsoft. It's not OK to make those assumptions, and it's not OK to make assumptions that a person with tattoos is somehow not "family friendly."

Except dudes with Disney tattoos. Or Josh. Or Maverick.

Ensign Smith said:
Well, I think most of the kids would be fine with it. It's the parents who would get squeamish. Which is the point.

But it's the parents who determine what younger kids do and where they go and more importantly where they don't go go and what they don't do.

If I'm walking down the street at night on my own and someone is approaching ahead who looks like they could kick my ass, I'll probably cross over or perk up a bit. They could be the nicest person in the world, for all I know.

As an employee at Waldameer, the handbook says "No visible tattoos." I have seen a few employees with uncovered tattoos, but I don't know if they simply haven't been caught or Waldameer is being leanient based on the content of the tattoos.

Stepping aside from the employee perspective, I feel some small tattoos would be ok pending on size (for example, can be covered by a hand) and content (clean language/not obscene).

By the way, we are not carnies at Waldameer. We are held to very high expectations and given several responsibilities. I'd say over 90% are regular, down-to-earth, and hardworking students. The other 10% being workers whom are there to have fun with kids and their families.

Jeff said:
And that's a slippery slope. It's my opinion that it's a half-click away from expecting that non-choice appearance has something to do with the person, where suddenly it's OK to assume that a black person will mug you or an Asian person is good at math. Or an Indian person works at Microsoft. It's not OK to make those assumptions, and it's not OK to make assumptions that a person with tattoos is somehow not "family friendly."

Rarely do I get to "wow" a Jeff post, but man - seems like a stretch to compare one person's opinion of situational appropriateness with racism.

And I'm not sure where you're pulling 'family friendly' from. The original post said:

"One of the employees at the X Scream stand had full arm tattoos and was a little disappointed he didn't have to cover those since after all it's a family park."

All that says to me is that given the situation, that look didn't feel right. And apparently Waldameer agrees:

AJFelice said:
As an employee at Waldameer, the handbook says "No visible tattoos."

I'm not sure why this is getting so blown out of proportion. Seems pretty standard for the amusement park industry as far as the look they expect from their employees.

Skin art and piercing are a matter of personal choice and taste. As such, everybody else in the universe retains the right to think highly, or less so, of both practice and practitioners. It has nothing to do with prejudice and everything to do with preference.

If you ask me, the whole topic's getting blown up just a little bit too much...but then again, that's just my opinion as well. :)

Edit: or, in short, what Gonch said.

Ensign Smith said:
It has nothing to do with prejudice and everything to do with preference.

I really like this as a simple summary.

So how many of you have been a umm... victim (for lack of a better word) of prejudice due to extreme hair color, tattoos, or piercings? Perhaps not being able to empathize has a lot to do with participation in said style choices?

LostKause

Are you really going to play that card? I'm a little disappointed, dude.

But let the record reflect, I've had some pretty weird hairstyles in my lifetime, though I've never been a fan of primary colors. Also, I had an (as in one) earring back in 1985, when it was still 'edgy'. It's long since grown over from disuse, and I don't feel the need to open it back. (I actually seem to have a cyst in my left earlobe that came from that time.) And I've had people look at me funny because of the conscious choices in clothing, hairstyle, and my one piercing way back when. Big deal.

I think you're taking the whole 'We're special and different and nobody understands us because of how unusual we look' thing waaaay to seriously. I mean, if it means that much, just go Goth, man.

Let me see if I can find another way to express this. Your being gay is a heck of a lot more of a real, actual, existential difference from the other 85% of humanity than your tats and pins ever will be. I'm sure you've suffered unbelievable prejudice and perhaps even real discrimination on the basis of your sexual orientation, which is a real difference and not a 'lifestyle'. I have a huge amount of respect for people who are true to their selves, to that part of their core that is unchangeable and profoundly established in their very being. For that, I give you kudos.

But complaining that people look at you funny because you color your arms and stick your body? That's trivial, and I don't have much sympathy for it.

Ensign Smith said:
It has nothing to do with prejudice and everything to do with preference.

If that were the case, no one would call out a person as "non family friendly" for having tattoos. That is by definition prejudice: "an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge."

I'm just asking, really. I don't have any answers here.

I was going to throw the gay thing in there too, and ask if people are looking at me funny (when I look strange by choice) because of how I look, or because they can pick up on some gayness. I really don't know. It's fun to ask though.

I am an artistic person, and as such, I really enjoy getting creative with my look. That doesn't really work where I've been living the last 5 or so years, in the backwood hillbilly sticks, where people love mowing lawns and riding four-wheelers and getting muddy and stuff. I really have to tone myself down here. I still dream about the day when I can wear my eyeliner, dye my hair blue, and sport all black and leather again though. lol I admit that I am a freak. I hate wearing this normal costume just to fit in. :)

LostKause said:
So how many of you have been a umm... victim (for lack of a better word) of prejudice due to extreme hair color, tattoos, or piercings?

Raises hand.

Most of my life. It was only in the last 4 or 5 years that I adopted the standard suburban dad look. I'm a former rockstar. :)

Quite frankly, I've gotten a little bored and complacent. The best I can do at my age and situation without looking like some weird middle aged wannabe is grow the beard/goatee and leave my hair grow out.

It's my way of saying I used to be cool. \m/ ;)

Jeff said:
If that were the case, no one would call out a person as "non family friendly" for having tattoos. That is by definition prejudice: "an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge."

Except that she didn't say that.

And I do belive her comment implies more about the situation (employee showing heavy tats) than her opinion of the person. In fact, it says nothing about the person.

How did you and I get on the same side? This is a twisted, twisted thread. ;)

Right?

CoasterBuzz is such a beautiful place. :)

I can practically hear Louis Armstrong singing...