WWE is Nonviolent!

[kidglov3s]

"- WWE spokesman Brian Flinn recently spoke out on the latest criticism aimed at WWE during Linda McMahon's Connecticut Senate campaign, claiming that the WWE TV product is violent. Linda's chief opponent, Chris Shays, has previously stated that McMahon benefited from violence and brutality as CEO of WWE. Here is what Flinn had to say"
"WWE's 13 million weekly TV viewers and our 100 million social media followers would disagree that WWE's content is violent. WWE programming is TV-PG and family friendly, with women making up nearly 40 percent of our audience. Contrary to the assertion about our content, WWE is in the business of putting smiles on people's faces."



Nonviolent smiles like that one.

Source: 411mania

[Celgress]

okay.........

[Krimzon]

WWE, the very nature of pro wrestling is violent.

[Spankymac is sick of the swiss]

....It's only a matter of time before they get rid of the ring for the benefit of Linda getting into the senate, isn't it?

["Cane Dewey" Johnson]

13 million unique viewers every week?

[Cronant]

Too bad its not a couple of months from now.

"WWE is nonviolent......BUT BUY HELL IN A CELL THIS WEEK ON PPV, THE DEVILS MOTHERf***ING PLAYGROUND, WHERE CAREERS ARE SHORTENED!!!"

[Celgress]

Jul 26, 2012 15:06:37 GMT -5 Spankymac is sick of the swiss said:

....It's only a matter of time before they get rid of the ring for the benefit of Linda getting into the senate, isn't it?

Vince, a pro wrestling promoter who hates actual wrestling go figure.

[FinalGwen]

See, I'd actually agree, in a way. While the stories involve violence, compare it to boxing or even MMA.

In those, the aim is to beat your opponent until he's too injured to get up. It thrives on violence and pain.
In pro wrestling, the aim is to make your opponent look like he's been beat up, while trying to remain as safe as possible.

For me, that's an important distinction, and the one that makes me watch wrestling but not the more violent forms of media.

[kidglov3s]

Jul 26, 2012 15:09:00 GMT -5 FinalGwen said:

See, I'd actually agree, in a way. While the stories involve violence, compare it to boxing or even MMA.

In those, the aim is to beat your opponent until he's too injured to get up. It thrives on violence and pain.
In pro wrestling, the aim is to make your opponent look like he's been beat up, while trying to remain as safe as possible.

For me, that's an important distinction, and the one that makes me watch wrestling but not the more violent forms of media.

But the stories they tell are surely violent? And also guys get hurt all the time doing matches. Like they try to make it safe but how do you learn to fall off a twenty foot ladder, etc. It's controlled violence, to some extent, but it's violence.

[Cronant]

Its worked violence. With the intent of making things as non painful as possible.

They could argue that, but not much else.

[Djm Doesn't Find You Funny]

The whole "We put smiles on people's faces" that comes straight from WWE's Marketing Department really irritates me.

[Celgress]

Jul 26, 2012 15:09:00 GMT -5 FinalGwen said:

See, I'd actually agree, in a way. While the stories involve violence, compare it to boxing or even MMA.

In those, the aim is to beat your opponent until he's too injured to get up. It thrives on violence and pain.
In pro wrestling, the aim is to make your opponent look like he's been beat up, while trying to remain as safe as possible.

For me, that's an important distinction, and the one that makes me watch wrestling but not the more violent forms of media.

No one is actually beaten senseless during action movies, or actually killed during horror movies. But damn, their content is still pretty darn violent.

[chazraps]

Jul 26, 2012 15:09:00 GMT -5 FinalGwen said:

See, I'd actually agree, in a way. While the stories involve violence, compare it to boxing or even MMA.

In those, the aim is to beat your opponent until he's too injured to get up. It thrives on violence and pain.
In pro wrestling, the aim is to make your opponent look like he's been beat up, while trying to remain as safe as possible.

For me, that's an important distinction, and the one that makes me watch wrestling but not the more violent forms of media.

But it's not a question of "is it as violent as," rather it's a question of "is it violent." If we're speaking in terms of a political forum that the initial allegation was placed in, the former question isn't relevant.

[Mayonnaise]

I don't think WWE as non-violent but they are not violent either. When I think of violent content I think of people shooting, stabbing, ripping off body parts and things like that. They are like Power Rangers with it being between two people instead of people against a giant puppet. Anyone with a 1/4 brain knows they are not trying to kill each other (well anymore) and it's just an act between two trained guys/gals where 9/10 the good guy wins, the characters will be back the next week and life goes on (for the most part).

[Spankymac is sick of the swiss]

Jul 26, 2012 15:10:31 GMT -5 Cronant said:

Its worked violence. With the intent of making things as non painful as possible.

They could argue that, but not much else.

It's an argument, but a weak one. The effect is still violent. For instance, I know that the people that made The Dark Knight Rises, worked as hard as they could to make sure every actor, extra, and stuntman was as safe as possible during filming, but the effect, on screen, is still spectacularly violent.

[Cronant]

Actually, the statement against WWE is what bothers me.

You could use the "Benefit from violence" thing on anyone with a background in sports and certain types of entertainment.

[CM Parish]

Jul 26, 2012 15:07:04 GMT -5 "Cane Dewey" Johnson said:

13 million unique viewers every week?

I'd say so. That probably includes gates at Raw, Smackdown, NXT and House shows, plus International countries such as Japan, UK, Mexico, India, Australia etc watching Raw, as well as the 4-5 million US raw watchers.

["Cane Dewey" Johnson]

Jul 26, 2012 15:02:05 GMT -5 kidglov3s said:

"- WWE spokesman Brian Flinn recently spoke out on the latest criticism aimed at WWE during Linda McMahon's Connecticut Senate campaign, claiming that the WWE TV product is violent. Linda's chief opponent, Chris Shays, has previously stated that McMahon benefited from violence and brutality as CEO of WWE. Here is what Flinn had to say"
"WWE's 13 million weekly TV viewers and our 100 million social media followers would disagree that WWE's content is violent. WWE programming is TV-PG and family friendly, with women making up nearly 40 percent of our audience. Contrary to the assertion about our content, WWE is in the business of putting smiles on people's faces."

Or, we will make fun of a loyal employee who has suffered with bouts of Bell's Palsy for over a decade, a paralysis that has affected this person's physical appearance, just so all the little kids at home can smile as we mock someone for daring to look different!



STONE COLD! STONE COLD! STONE COLD!

I hate WWE's PR so damned much.

Jul 26, 2012 15:14:39 GMT -5 CM Parish said:

Jul 26, 2012 15:07:04 GMT -5 "Cane Dewey" Johnson said:

13 million unique viewers every week?

I'd say so. That probably includes gates at Raw, Smackdown, NXT and House shows, plus International countries such as Japan, UK, Mexico, India, Australia etc watching Raw, as well as the 4-5 million US raw watchers.

They probably just added the numbers of Raw with the numbers of Smackdown (most likely the same audience who watches the one show watches the other) on top of including international viewers (which is relevant to the specific U.S. context that Brian Flinn is responding to because...?). Even the 100 million social media followers number is inflated: someone could have a Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, Pinterest, and Tout account. That's one person that they would count 5 times.

[Cronant]

Jul 26, 2012 15:15:39 GMT -5 "Cane Dewey" Johnson said:

Jul 26, 2012 15:02:05 GMT -5 kidglov3s said:

"- WWE spokesman Brian Flinn recently spoke out on the latest criticism aimed at WWE during Linda McMahon's Connecticut Senate campaign, claiming that the WWE TV product is violent. Linda's chief opponent, Chris Shays, has previously stated that McMahon benefited from violence and brutality as CEO of WWE. Here is what Flinn had to say"
"WWE's 13 million weekly TV viewers and our 100 million social media followers would disagree that WWE's content is violent. WWE programming is TV-PG and family friendly, with women making up nearly 40 percent of our audience. Contrary to the assertion about our content, WWE is in the business of putting smiles on people's faces."

Or, we will make fun of a loyal employee who has suffered with bouts of Bell's Palsy for over a decade, a paralysis that has affected this person's physical appearance, just so all the little kids at home can smile as we mock someone for daring to look different!



STONE COLD! STONE COLD! STONE COLD!

I hate WWE's PR so damned much.

Why do people continue to point out on screen characters acting like douchebags in things like this?

[kidglov3s]

Jul 26, 2012 15:12:30 GMT -5 Mayonnaise said:

I don't think WWE as non-violent but they are not violent either. When I think of violent content I think of people shooting, stabbing, ripping off body parts and things like that. They are like Power Rangers with it being between two people instead of people against a giant puppet. Anyone with a 1/4 brain knows they are not trying to kill each other (well anymore) and it's just an act between two trained guys/gals where 9/10 the good guy wins, the characters will be back the next week and life goes on (for the most part).

That's arguing that it's mildly violent rather than severely violent (most of the examples listed, actually, argue more that it's not gory rather than that it's not violent). WWE is about people hitting each other. It's about Throwing people off vehicles down 20 feet. It's about making 20 steel chairs fall on top of someone you don't like. It's about putting someone in the most painful predicament possible so they'll surrender because they can't endure the pain any longer. It's about beating someone so severely that they can be held down until someone counts to three. It's about beating someone so severely that they can't stand up in ten seconds. It's about violence.