Tsunami now a sensative word?

---

dr_pepper_PhD said:
...why all the sudden people have to react to these things.

---

Because that's what people do. That's what human beings do.

Seriously, the most sad thing about any disaster is that it takes one for people to start caring about each other. Then the love wears off in practically no time.

Agreed, and the same was true for 9/11. Remember all of the flags and clothes that came out after words? Remember how everyone was all patriotic? At that time I was in 9th grade and actually felt like I was part of a United country. It seems like that patriotism has left and we're back to where we were before 9/11, divided and whining about everything again. Sad to say that it does take a huge disaster to unite us.

...This thread is moving too quickly to keep up. :) *** Edited 1/7/2005 2:33:46 AM UTC by MarimbaGuy87***

In my opinion I don't think that disasters bring people together. Not that people aren't brought together, but it not like it's legitimate. Instead of pulling together they just all agree on something to b itch about, like 9/11, people were just doing the next pop culture idea - "hey, let's look like a country united blah, blah, blah, and then we'll hate and kill all the world's terrorists" With this tsunami thing the next big thing is to come together and give as much as you can. Like everything people will lose intrest just like the war in Afganistien, even before we went into Iraq we the country forgot about the troops and were just complaining about us not catching Usama. Remember back when we just got attacked and people were thinking that this would be another "easy" war for the U.S. The pop culture thing to do was to support the war, then the American public moved on. The tsunami wave "craze" will pass and people will forget about what happend, they'll think that the problem will be fixed and all is good in just a few short months. People can't understand anything that takes a longer then the "quick-fix" usally time. The tsunami aftermath is going to take years and years to get things back to what they were before the wave happened. But do you think more then a dozen people will care 1 year from now? The whole anniversary thing for the wave will spark intrest for a few weeks in the next year. Just like 9/11, people will get reminded every year and care and act like they are a country together for that week and then go back to regular life.

I'm going to stop typing now. Once I get started on these subjects I can go and go for a year and a half. I know that this post jumps from one subject to another and is probaly hard to read and keep straight, it's just that it is hard to keep my thoughts straight long enough to type them. It's like picking up after a little kid, as soon as you take something off the ground the kid trows two more things down. Sorry for the "choppy" post.

Well, I think the reason that the "love" fades so quickly is because it's just not a part of our psyches anymore to be naturally so compassionate and attentive to every single person. It's the nature of what's become the new human beast: things just move too fast nowadays to keep up in that kind of personal way. No indictment or approval of that, just the facts.

So when something comes along that jars us out of the lull of the daily grind, we stop and take note, we adjust accordingly, and then we slip back into the daily gring again. It's like trying to quit smoking by just instinctively going cold turkey one morning -- it may seem like it's gonna work out great, but over time because it's not really habit it's hard to work into routine, so it fades away and you pick up the cigarettes again.

And yes, in case you missed the allegory I was going for, indifference is, sadly, the foremost addiction of our time. But we'll only reflect on it now, while we have the occasion...soon we'll be back to cursing the FedEx driver for not delivering our iPods fast enough.

--Dave (who thinks that whoever first said "Life's a b*tch" really had no idea how right he was gonna end up being, did he?)

Moosh, you are fighting a loosing battle here, but I'm sure you realize that. Some people really are Oblivious.

But seriously folks. Tsunami is a word. It denotes different things to different people. What happened is a terrible thing that has nothing to do with roller coasters, theme parks, or anything else of the like.

Regardless, you can't push your opinion onto other people, that makes one a troll. Do I find a coaster called Tsunami offensive? No. Will someone else? Possibly. This will go down in history as a terrible disaster. But, then, so did certain earth quakes, volcano erutpions, hurricanes, and many other natural disasters. But in time people will heal, and things will be right again.

Should a park change the name of the attraction? It is up to them, they own it. But just because some of us thing it is a good idea dosen't mean a person in charge of a park will. I often hear some of the same people saying what I'm about to say: Thank goodness it isn't up to you.

As for 9/11 and such, that was a small act of murder. Try researching what the catholic church(no, not pointing the finger at catholics here) did to the over 200,000 people in Rawanda. That was more on scale of this. There are nuns and priests on trial for it now.

But this has nothing to do wiht that. Murder is murder. But this was loss of life due to a natural disaster. The argument that since this is recent and thus the name must be purged from coasters is simply stupid. Every time a large scale disaster happens, you want every attraction to have a name change? Please. Go lock yourself in your home so that you don't have to deal with these things. The world might just be a better place.

And Tina, you can't name them Roller Coaster 1 or 2 either. People have died on coasters as well. Why not just not name any attraction, and give it a number. Has anybody ever died from a number?

Cripes. Jeesh. Honestly.

Don't know of anyone dying from a number but I once had a "incident" with 8.

I'd rather not talk about it. :)

---

Jeff said:
I doubt very much that the use of "tsunami" has anything to do with being politically correct. I doubt it's an emotional issue at all. To me it seems like a business decision. I wouldn't want to own something associated with the death of tens of thousands of people, even in a casual manner.

---

But then in the long run isn't it a business decision based on emotional issues? (and to a lesser degree, being "correct")

The parks want to change the names because of the way people might perceive rides bearing such a name. It's better to change the name (some parks think) as not to offend or disturb anyone who might potentially have that reaction. I think the argument is that to have that reaction is silly. If someone was ok with the name in the first place, there's no reason not to be ok with it now and in turn no reason for such a business decision to be made.

Sure everyone has their own "line in the sand" but when an amusement park or water park has to make your morals their concern (when rides - even water attractions - graced with that name have been fine for X number of years) then I personally find it frustrating. As do other posting in that vein of argument.

It's non-issue turned into a business decision issue due to the sensitivity and correctness of things and if this thread sampling is any indicator, people with those feelings are in the minority.

Really, how many people would skip the local water park because of the Tsunami wave pool that's been there and named as such for two decades?

How many, Gonch? Apparently, at least one.

Anyone remember the nicotine gum (or dieting gum?) called AIDS? Why do you suppose that disappeared? Extreme example, I know, but not entirely dissimilar.

If you're going to curse people's sensitivity to things, I guess that's your opinion (though not a great way to maintain human relationships, in my experience), but if you're cursing the business for doing it, well, I don't get that at all. If I were a Grand Poobah Klansman, I wouldn't burn crosses in front of my shop at risk of it affecting my business, no matter what my (misguided) convictions were. Again, this might be minor by comparison, but you get the idea. That's why there's no Wild Ebola Pepsi or WTC Lego sets.

Similar, but not quite the same.

AIDS didn't mean what it did when that gum debuted, correct? The disease took greater precedence and the word became associated with one of the worst diseases of the times. You don't name a gum after disease...even if you were first. Same reason you don't see Ebola Pepsi and if for some reason it had come before the notoriuous disease, it would be changed. But...

Tsunami has always meant Tsunami - big wave that destroys. Suddenly when it happens and people are forced to look at and think about what it really means, they get all sensitive? Nice. Selective sensitivity. That's exactly the world we live in and (again, just my odd world view) precisely the problem.

But why, then, Jeff, do we see so many Cyclones, Tornados, Quakes, Tsunamis, Blazing Furys, Fires in the Hole, Wildfires, Avalanches, Lightnings, etc.?

It isn't cursing someone's sensitivity to something. I can sympathize with that. If I were constantly doing what you are accusing, then I doubt very seriously I would have lasted at the hospital I work at this long, or mantianed so many personal friendships.

But there does have to be a line drawn. If I were so sensitive that I sat in my house and trembled and cried everytime I heard the word tsunami, tornado, AIDS, or anything else that may, to some people, conjure up bad thoughts, then I'd be a shell of a person, and to suggest that everything be re-written just because some people can't control their emotions is just a ludacris(:)) idea.

Sensitivity is one thing, but I'm not going to live my life worried that every thing I say or do might offend someone. If I offend, I'll be the one to apologize, but some people are just looking for something to get upset over.

It is quite silly from many standpoints. One of my idols always said "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one".

If only a couple people are upset, but the vast majority remain unaffected, logic would dictate that the majority's needs are to come first.

Yeah, just call me Spock.

Does anyone remember back in 2001, immediately following the disaster, there were a TON of songs that were "banned" from radio airwaves. The most obvious, "It's Raining Men". They claimed sensitivity, etc. etc.

How long did that last? A month? Two? Three for the really tight-wads? By very early 2002 I was hearing most of the songs that were supposedly "banned", and by summer there wasn't one song that I had previously heard regularly that wasn't being played again.

My point? Tsunami might be offensive now (depending on the person), but who's going to even think of it in 3 months? That's March. What water parks (who have/previously had rides named Tsunami) are opening in March? What are they going to do.. rename it back to tsunami when they realize no one cares anymore? Or are they going to wait for the endless flood of fanpersons (to stay PC ;) ), who are totally oblivious to the fact it was only a name change for an overly-PC society, march up to guest relations and say "THE TSUNAMI WAVEPOOL WAS MY FAVORITE RIDE!! WHY'D YOU GET RID OF IT AND ADD A NEW ONE?"

Here is another story with tsunami coaster trying to have the name changed.

http://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/output/2005/01/04/story6686523t0.shtm

After looking thru that dreadful search feature;), I found something I knew was there. In this thread, people were saying the same thing as most on this thread are. Well, except for one Obvious person, who apparently didn't think it was a big deal then. Why such a change now?

But I'm sure you'll either not respond, have some dreadfully unfunny comeback, or just double talk your way out of it, so why do I even bother?

---

Mamoosh said:
Look at the end of what you quoted from my post: "unless the park feels it would be in their best interest to do so."

---

I guess I should clarify, too. I think it's reasonable for any waterpark to ditch the name Tsunami on any water attraction faster then Paris Hilton can drop her pants in a poorly lit video. I think it would be in their best interest to do so. That's business stuff, not politically correct stuff.

As for Clementon, that's a little trickier. I agree there is no compelling need to change it in that case. But if they did decide to change it, I don't really think it would be some giant loss in the "PC war." It seems like it would simply be a business decision.

Making this like the O'Reilly Christmas war/political stuff seems foolhardy.

Call me insensitive but I can't help but think this is such a waste of time to change the names because of an event.

This coming from person who wore his t-shirt for Tsunami at Clementon Lake Park this week and had people telling him to change it or telling me how insensitive I was.

I haven't been directly effected by the recent tsunami disaster, but that doesn't stop me from feeling terrible about all of the people that died. I still don't think that these rides should have their names changed just because of this event. Tsunamis happen alot more than once every 15,000 years, and yes they do kill people. I just don't see the point because, as others have said, 98% of these people (who are angry about the names) won't even care about the ride names in a few months. There's a ride named Atomic Coaster in Japan... I'm sure that was a sensitive subject, but it's not anymore, or at least not as much. Changing the names of rides like this isn't going to do anything besides make people happy for a little while. If they don't change the names people won't be very offended...

Maybe it's just because i'm relatively young and not good at expressing myself, but that's what I feel.

I was the 3rd person to post on this thread and mentioned the various natural disasters that coasters are named after. None are more insensitive than others.

To take this one step further...

You can find a coaster named after most anything could be traumatizing to someone one. Let's take Hersheypark's line up.

Storm Runner: How many people have died as a reult of storms (lightning, floods, wind, etc)?

Lightning Racer: Again, how many have been struck by lightning.

Great Bear: Past 20 years there have been at least 23 people killed and 75 injured in Bear attacks in Alaska alone.

Sidewinder: Its a snake... a type of rattle snake... a poisionous snake... They kill people. It's also a type of missile... that kills people.

Wild Mouse: Mice (specifically rats) were responsible for the greatest death toll in history... the Black Plague.

Wildcat: Not sure of any other specifics... but in April 2002 in Nepal 16 persons were mauled to death by wildcats.

Comet: Family members of the people who offed themselves as a result of waiting for the UFO that they thought was following in the tale of the Hale-Bopp Comet may be disturbed by this name.

Trailblazer, Sooperdooperlooper and Roller Soaker are the only three that are "safe".

Bottom line... the name Tsunami is not specific. It describes a wave as the result of seizmic activity (often mistakenly called a Tidal Wave since it has nothing to do with Tidal Wave or Storm Surges or the like).

Now, to announce a coaster today named Tsunami may be a bit insensitive, but it is just that... insensitive. To name a coaster directly after this event... such as SriLanka Tsunami would be down right wrong. With the exception of Cypress Garden's Triple Hurricane (reportedly named for the 3 major hurricanes that hit Florida in 2004), none of the weather or natural disaster related names are specific.

Come to think of it... I want all of the coasters named Galaxy to be renamed. In July of 1971 I was on the way to Ocean City MD with my parents, aunt, uncle and 2 cousins in a Ford Galaxy stationwagon. We were hit by a drunk driver, flipped over, and the car burst into flames... while some of us were still in side. Everyone escaped with relatively minor injuries... but the event was traumatizing to ME... So everytime I climb aboard a Galaxy coaster (with its "cars" that acually look like little cars), it might bring this to mind.

I think I'll go call my lawyer now. *** Edited 1/7/2005 2:25:11 PM UTC by SLFAKE***

The saddest part is, you'd probably get your way. I love how people seem to think that they're going to change the world, that ignoring it will just make it go away. People die. They die horribly, they die pleasantly, they die being crushed by floats while dressed up as Pluto and they get run over by trucks. Big f'in deal. The name of a roller coaster, or a waterpark ride, or even what your t-shirt says isn't going to change that, isn't going to stop that, and if someone chooses to depress themselves over the fates of 150,000 people they didn't know, whose deaths are going to bring about a renessaisance (sp?) for that area (do you really think the US, Europe and Austrailia are going to use that money to rebuild grass huts? Can you say 'central air' for the first time ever?) then that's their freakin problem. Don't bother me with your (in my opinion) desparate attempt for attention and pity because of how bad YOU feel. Talk about exlploiting the situation - "everybody look at me, I feel bad for these people I don't know and will never meet, that makes me an awesome human being, now everybody bow down and do my bidding!"

Yeah, big man now.

--Brett, who *will* go complain to Sandcastle if the wavepool name changes just because of the principle of the thing.

Nobody is calling a ride "The Great Tsunami Disaster Of 2004", the name just makes a general reference to the tsunami phenomena, which have occurred in the past and will occur in the future. This is not being insensitive to those who have lost loved ones in the recent disaster.

As far as the name leading to a negative reaction by guests, I would bet that most people would not react negatively to an amusement ride called "Tsunami". Cedar Point even had a ride called "San Francisco Earthquake", a direct recreation of one of the biggest natural disasters in U.S. history. No negative reactions, it was a popular ride for many years.

Mr Cannon said the park has other rides pointing towards natural disasters but would likewise retain those brand names in the face of controversy.

“We have a ride called the Tornado,” he said. “It is a freak weather occurrence, the same as this. I would suggest that people spend less time complaining and spend more time helping to send money as I and the company have.”

EXACTLY RIGHT!

Chuck