What's with this Anti-IWC business?

[wisdomwizard]

I'm usually more optimistic and positive about WWE in general, and I've gotten mad sometimes at some bitter posts. But I'm getting tired of this one-upsmanship where I see certain posters (not naming names, they know who they are) state things like everyone is some hivemind. That could not be further from the truth with this board. There are some people who can get carried away when they're down on everything WWE, but it goes the exact other way too and I'm getting really tired of it.



I just want to know, what is the deal? I'm not trying to start anything, I just want a civil discussion about where exactly this perception is coming from?

[Rubix Cube Johnny]

Sand in my pants.

It's really bugging me dude.

[Deleted]

I think outside of gimmick posters that people get more wound up when they see alternate opinions to their own if it doesn't fit what they perceive, so even if only one or two people complain/celebrate something they will make posts filled with hyperbole to make up for the lack of factual reference points as sometimes those two people can seem like a bigger mass of the fanbase. I have done that a handful of times in the past with some posters, and most people move past it quickly (like I hope I have) so just one of the consistent concerns with forums; people need to go through that stage, and with a forum as active as this one you'll see it crop up noticeably at certain points.

It always seems to crop up around the end of the year/Road to Wrestlemania I think, the former due to an often-stagnant/time waster content in the product and the latter due to passion behind returning guys/under-appreciated full time workers/writing veering between brilliant & awful.

[carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army)]

I mean, it's not enormously surprising? I know I don't pay much attention to who posts what around here, and I bet a lot of people don't, either. Since you're not paying attention to where the opinions are coming from, it's easy to think they're more widespread than they actually are.

[Zaq "That Guy" Buzzkill]

I hate everything you all like.

[Amazing Kitsune]

There is not a hivemind, but there is a stereotypical response to things from time to time. For example, people tend to hate HHH. Does he deserve some of it? Absolutely. Does he deserve all of it? Absolutely not. Triple H rage, in my view, is mostly limited to the--I hate the terms IWC and/or smark, but it works--IWC. Casual fans totally believe that Triple H is the baddest badass of them all. IWC fans tend to look at things deeper and, like any fandom, become obsessed--for good or for ill.

The IWC tends to lionize small, technical guys who can "wrestle" over the big, power guys who "can't wrestle". Guys with indy cred get super-credibility and people want them to come into the WWE like a freight rain and plow over John Cena in a few months with CM Punk and Daniel Bryan as a super stable. The IWC fan complains for days and days about how much a show sucks but continues to watch it each week like it's some sort of masochistic challenge.

A lot of these opinions are justified. Some aren't. Not everybody falls into the category and it's not an accurate label for everybody to wear.

Still, the stereotype exists because there's some truth to it. I know one time I waited in line for TNA in Orlando when I was on vacation and I was behind these two guys who spent the entire hour before the show talking about how much the show sucked and how much better the WWE was and how much they hated it. How much better so and so was in the indies and how far, far superior ROH was to TNA or the WWE. They were loud and obnoxious

Most of the people on this site are reasonable, well-spoken people--but sometimes we all fit into stereotypical molds of some sort. It can be funny to poke fun at it.

This site makes fun of stuff. Making fun of that is no different.

[BigJerichool222]

I didn't realize that there were people on here who were like this.

[xxshoyuweeniexx]

Dec 10, 2013 20:14:25 GMT -5 BigJerichool222 said:

I didn't realize that there were people on here who were like this.

Everybody needs a gimmick.

[Kevin Hamilton]

Self-perceived martyr and/or contrarianism; whether it's apt or not. In some cases it can be, in WAY more it just looks silly.

[Deleted]

Isn't it the case where stereotypes exist not because they're necessarily true, but because it's a way for the brain to easily group things?* Which makes sense because no human being has the amount of brainpower to devote to knowing the subtle nuances of each and every person.


(*to be applied to PRO WRESTLING/"IWC" ONLY. I better not see any of y'all try to apply this to other, more important things.)

[Allie Kitsune]

It's the internet, everything gets taken to its extreme.

A lot of times, when you find that rare soul who doesn't enjoy the likes of Punk, Bryan, or Ambrose (or other 'this guy is popular with the majority on the internet'), others don't consider it a difference of opinion, they make it a point to tell the person that they are WRONG. Or that they're only doing it to be contrary and get attention. Or that they're an idiot who'll swallow any fecal matter that HHH and Vince crams down their throat.

And of course hearing things like that only makes a person dig in deeper, sometimes.

[rapidfire187]

As someone that's been reading and writing about wrestling on the internet since the late 90's, I can certainly see where this hivemind business comes from. For one, you have to understand that this forum is a bit different. This place was originally wrestlecrap, a place to laugh at the bad things in wrestling without getting too serious. I think that attitude is still around today.

This "IWC Smark hivemind" shit comes from wrestling columnists I think. For example: 411mania in the late 90's/early 2000's was very anti-HHH, pro-Benoit, anti-Hogan, pro-Angle, anti-Goldberg, pro-Jericho, etc.

"Smarks" generally boo showmanship and cheer workrate, but adore a good mixture of the two. Wrestling writers like Meltzer and especially the internet columnists like Scott Keith basically taught an entire generation of internet fans what to like and dislike in wrestling.

When you consider this, the hivemind attitude isn't that far fetched...I mean, it really WAS like that for a long time. This board and probably some other ones have been progressive in the last few years in that posters are coming out as big Cena fans and stuff like that but honestly, it comes across as going against the grain just like the "IWC attitude".

[Captain2]

Dec 10, 2013 19:14:20 GMT -5 Zaq "That Guy" Buzzkill said:

I hate everything you all like.

....I didn't know Punk posted on this board.

[SEAN CARLESS]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I know I get particularly annoyed with blanket statements that are then disproven through example or fact, thus ending the argument, and said person keeps arguing ignorantly, not knowing that they no longer have an argument and their point has been defeated. It's mind-numbingly annoying.

There's no shame in admitting you're wrong or perhaps do not have insights others may have that you don't, or won't see.

For example, I myself was recently wrong about the Ura nage being a modified Rock bottom in a thread, and was corrected by someone who actually trains as a Judoka and explained what it really entailed. I didn't say "Well, I think it's a ura nage!" like an idiot after being schooled, I accepted I was out of my particular element in this case and even thanked the poster for setting me straight. It's better to go through life learning and adapting, rather than being stupidly stubborn.

[Chip]

This forum always seemed to shrug off the "IWC" stereotype, it's why I stuck around here. I mean, we have threads praising Cena on a weekly basis, that pretty much shatters the stereotype in one swing.

[The Ichi]

^ Please tell me that Twitter exchange really happened.

(Edit: directed at Sean)

[Deleted]

Dec 10, 2013 20:59:41 GMT -5 SEAN CARLESS said:

I can't speak for anyone else, but I know I get particularly annoyed with blanket statements that are then disproven through example or fact, thus ending the argument, and said person keeps arguing ignorantly, not knowing that they no longer have an argument and their point has been defeated. It's mind-numbingly annoying.

There's no shame in admitting you're wrong or perhaps do not have insights others may have that you don't, or won't see.

For example, I myself was recently wrong about the Ura nage being a modified Rock bottom in a thread, and was corrected by someone who actually trains as a Judoka and explained what it really entailed. I didn't say "Well, I think it's a ura nage!" like an idiot after being schooled, I accepted I was out of my particular element in this case and even thanked the poster for setting me straight. It's better to go through life learning and adapting, rather than being stupidly stubborn.

Bah, everyone knows the Uranage is a modified sunset flip.

[rnrk supports BLM]

Brooks tells me this thread is really bland and sanitized for the PG kiddie audience. It's a disgrace that we haven't got anything with the quality of '80s NWA BBS discussions anymore.

[Allie Kitsune]

Dec 10, 2013 20:59:41 GMT -5 SEAN CARLESS said:

I can't speak for anyone else, but I know I get particularly annoyed with blanket statements that are then disproven through example or fact, thus ending the argument, and said person keeps arguing ignorantly, not knowing that they no longer have an argument and their point has been defeated. It's mind-numbingly annoying.

There's no shame in admitting you're wrong or perhaps do not have insights others may have that you don't, or won't see.

For example, I myself was recently wrong about the Ura nage being a modified Rock bottom in a thread, and was corrected by someone who actually trains as a Judoka and explained what it really entailed. I didn't say "Well, I think it's a ura nage!" like an idiot after being schooled, I accepted I was out of my particular element in this case and even thanked the poster for setting me straight. It's better to go through life learning and adapting, rather than being stupidly stubborn.

I can't _entirely_ agree. When it comes to liking or disliking a wrestler, one can understand why OTHERS like someone, but still personally not like them.

For the longest time, I didn't like Steve Austin even though he was the most popular wrestler on the planet. I understood why other people liked him, what they saw in him, but he still just didn't appeal to me (until the "My name is Stone Cold Steve Austin and I do NOT deserve this!" gimmick).

[SEAN CARLESS]

Dec 10, 2013 21:14:40 GMT -5 Allie Kitsune said:

Dec 10, 2013 20:59:41 GMT -5 SEAN CARLESS said:

I can't speak for anyone else, but I know I get particularly annoyed with blanket statements that are then disproven through example or fact, thus ending the argument, and said person keeps arguing ignorantly, not knowing that they no longer have an argument and their point has been defeated. It's mind-numbingly annoying.

There's no shame in admitting you're wrong or perhaps do not have insights others may have that you don't, or won't see.

For example, I myself was recently wrong about the Ura nage being a modified Rock bottom in a thread, and was corrected by someone who actually trains as a Judoka and explained what it really entailed. I didn't say "Well, I think it's a ura nage!" like an idiot after being schooled, I accepted I was out of my particular element in this case and even thanked the poster for setting me straight. It's better to go through life learning and adapting, rather than being stupidly stubborn.

I can't _entirely_ agree. When it comes to liking or disliking a wrestler, one can understand why OTHERS like someone, but still personally not like them.

For the longest time, I didn't like Steve Austin even though he was the most popular wrestler on the planet. I understood why other people liked him, what they saw in him, but he still just didn't appeal to me (until the "My name is Stone Cold Steve Austin and I do NOT deserve this!" gimmick).

I agree with that. But that's an example of a subjective argument. No one can tell you you're wrong or that they're right in that case. I was speaking more of things like claiming someone is or isn't a draw when there's figures that could conclusively prove them wrong. Those people who argue, blinded by what they want things to be, rather than what they actually are.