pegasuswarrior
El Dandy
Three Time FAN Idol Champion
@PulpPictionary
Posts: 8,748
|
Post by pegasuswarrior on Apr 9, 2018 15:45:20 GMT -5
Probably not because people are just blowing it out of proportion. They have nothing to gain by defending or detracting from it. I'm not sure if those of us who weren't there are in any position to say what was blown out of proportion and what wasn't. No one else was quoted and called out for their comments even though they weren’t there.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Apr 9, 2018 15:48:14 GMT -5
I'm not sure if those of us who weren't there are in any position to say what was blown out of proportion and what wasn't. No one else was quoted and called out for their comments even though they weren’t there. People can have opinions about the act based in the abstract, and based on what information is available; none of us are particularly qualified, though, to really have a "this was blown out of proportion/not blown out of proportion" opinion unless we saw how things went down. Basically, it's fine to say something that amounts to "based on what I've read, I think...", but might not be best to have declarative sounding opinions one way or the other on something if one hasn't seen what happened.
|
|
|
Post by Z-A Sandbaggin' Son of a b!%@h on Apr 9, 2018 16:22:57 GMT -5
No one else was quoted and called out for their comments even though they weren’t there. People can have opinions about the act based in the abstract, and based on what information is available; none of us are particularly qualified, though, to really have a "this was blown out of proportion/not blown out of proportion" opinion unless we saw how things went down. Basically, it's fine to say something that amounts to "based on what I've read, I think...", but might not be best to have declarative sounding opinions one way or the other on something if one hasn't seen what happened. This is my problem with this whole thing. This is a forum where people are expected to express their opinions on topics that are sometimes hot button topics. However, that isn’t what has been the experience as of late because opinions aren’t wanted, heard, or respected unless they fit the mold. My opinion is that this is blown out of proportion. But I wasn’t there. I’m not part of the community. I have no voice in it. However look at some of the threads that have popped up. People have opinions about Moolah. People have opinions about JBL. And not a single one of Us on this board was there for any of those things but people take hearsay and rumors and form “declarative” statements about those things. And as long as they fit the majority it’s cool. And god forbid someone go and say something other than that because 100 posters are gonna jump on them immediately. And that’s cool because they are “wrong”. This falls into the same thing. I see this as getting heat. As poor of an idea as it is seen and I do get that. But how is this different than bubba Dudley threatening to skull f*** Someone’s dead mother? How is this different than Rick Rude coming out and telling us fat out of shape slobs to shut up so our women could ogle his manliness? And the big one is hownis this different than someone burning a nations flag or wiping their ass with it. Wrestling is different than pretty much any other media outlet there is. They are going to push the envelope and do shit that makes people uncomfortable. They are going to piss you off. That’s what they do. If it hurts your feelings and you don’t want to see them anymore. Great! Don’t watch. Or watch them to see them get their comeuppance. It’s freaking heel tactics. That is why I think it’s been blown out of proportion. That is why I make a declarative statement on it.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Apr 9, 2018 17:01:56 GMT -5
I love nasty, vile heels. Jake Roberts was incredible, as is Harley Race, Minoru Suzuki, Randy Savage as a heel, Big Van Vader, those guys are awesome. Kevin Owens and Sami Zayn have been great lately. Jericho was a BOSS leading up to Wrestle Kingdom 12.
What I don't like are heels like Jinder Mahal, or the original Goldust or Muhammad Hassan. Those are the kinds of characters who cross over into triggering people in the audience and making them flat out upset, not just uncomfortable. Race, sexual orientation and things like that are very emotional subjects for many people. So normally, I generally don't like it when the major promotions try to handle those kinds of stories, because it either usually winds up being awkward, offensive or both.
I think pro wrestling as a whole needs more LGBT inclusion- more queer talent being pushed, more representation behind the scenes- than it does storylines about homophobic heels getting their comeuppance. When people see that in 2018, it comes off dated IMO.
|
|
Futureraven: Beelzebruv
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Ultimate Arbiter of Right And Wrong
Spent half my life here, God help me
Posts: 15,179
|
Post by Futureraven: Beelzebruv on Apr 10, 2018 1:50:50 GMT -5
Wrestling's also different to other entertainment because the lines of reality are blurred.
A lot of characters are the person, so when a known homophobe disrespects the pride flag... that matters.
Thought entertainment was meant to be an escape, so someone in the LGBT community goes there to be entrtained... oh no, it's the same shit that they have to deal with every day.
Also, there's the lie that this stuff is needed, or ever productive.
Name me a top heel that relies on this in the last 30 years? No an offhand comment because of the culture of the time, not the fake US/Canada stuff, someone who has treating a minority like crap or plays a negative stereotype and was the top heel and needed to do that?
Wrestling's a business and beyond morality, this shit doesn't draw money and actively turns away an audience.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Apr 10, 2018 5:00:05 GMT -5
Another thing that isn't mentioned with the "but WWE or TNA could do something like this" argument is...indy wrestling is far closer to an exhibition than an overarching story. Wrestling storylines, at its core, has morality plays. If there is a storyline in WWE or TNA, on paper, it's the same problem there. You can get away with more extreme, more problematic viewpoints in a storyline... AS LONG AS THE PERSON WHO DOES IT LOSES IN THE END. That's the reason for problems like Booker T/HHH and Jinder/Nakamura: It's less that the heel who did it DID these actions for cheap heat, but rather THE HEEL WHO DID THOSE THINGS WON IN THE END. The heel was racist to the babyface, and the racist WON. They got the victory, and proved that their viewpoint was "right". (By contrast, if for example, Nia Jax destroys Alexa Bliss at Wrestlemania, Alexa Bliss fatshaming Nia Jax would be "okay" in this aspect, because the fatshamer would have lost miserably and showed people the moral that what she did was bad, and losing big to Nia was her punishment for it.) Indy wrestling, on the other hand, is less a morality play and more an exhibition for it...and that's the whole problem. The Briscoes using a Pride flag to choke someone out is not part of a morality play. We're not going to see someone like Jack Sexsmith rise to the occasion and beat the crap out of the Briscoes to show them that homophobia is wrong, because indy wrestling is more of an exhibition...and that's a bad thing. By exhibiting the in-ring work of the Briscoes, you're inherently saying "We stand by them as performers". They're allowed to "win" not by the win or loss, but by getting bookings for their talent that say "we stand by what these people say or do", both by the promotions and the people watching to see the Briscoes. That's the biggest difference- the Briscoes being homophobes will not be part of a morality play where they get destroyed in the end for their homophobia, it's just...two homophobic jerks being jerks. My main question is, why does wrestling still need these "morality tales" in the first place today? At its core, wrestling is a simulated sport, not a dramatic TV series. It's an exhibition everywhere. Personally, did Bliss vs. Jax even need the "body shaming angle"? I don't think it did, and the Briscoes don't need to be using pride flags as weapons. When I see stuff like that, or when I heard that god awful promo Mahal cut on Nakamura, I didn't care about the heel getting theirs in the end, because the storyline has already taken a turn into bad taste. I've already been taken out of it. Even with HHH vs. Booker, when fans talk about "oh, Booker should have won in the end!" If I were on creative, I would have lobbied against doing the racial angle in the first place. The problem wasn't that the bad guy bigot won, the problems began when HHH made those comments. It never should have been inserted in the story to begin with. Just make your wrestling storylines about the rivalries and championships, and fans will buy tickets. They don't need to have basic ideas of tolerance reinforced by an offensive heel getting theirs, because most modern wrestling audiences have different attitudes from previous generations.
|
|
|
Post by Viking Hall on Apr 10, 2018 10:37:42 GMT -5
The big issue here is that the concept of being offended is an arbitrary thing, there is no right or wrong since every single one of us has different tolerances and to use a term I hate, triggers. Like pain, some of us may have a low tolerance while others are much higher, there's no real way of knowing. What the Briscoes (or any other wrestler mentioned) did may have offended you, but in the words of Stephen Fry 'well so f***ing what?' Being offended isn't a right, it's a personal choice so while people are more than within their rights to find anything offensive the flipside of that is that they don't really have the right to tell someone who isn't offended that they should be offended too.
|
|
|
Post by Rudy Gobert Fadeaway on Apr 10, 2018 10:55:51 GMT -5
The big issue here is that the concept of being offended is an arbitrary thing, there is no right or wrong since every single one of us has different tolerances and to use a term I hate, triggers. Like pain, some of us may have a low tolerance while others are much higher, there's no real way of knowing. What the Briscoes (or any other wrestler mentioned) did may have offended you, but in the words of Stephen Fry 'well so f***ing what?' Being offended isn't a right, it's a personal choice so while people are more than within their rights to find anything offensive the flipside of that is that they don't really have the right to tell someone who isn't offended that they should be offended too. Yeah, that's literally called morals and standards, dude.
|
|
|
Post by Viking Hall on Apr 10, 2018 11:00:47 GMT -5
The big issue here is that the concept of being offended is an arbitrary thing, there is no right or wrong since every single one of us has different tolerances and to use a term I hate, triggers. Like pain, some of us may have a low tolerance while others are much higher, there's no real way of knowing. What the Briscoes (or any other wrestler mentioned) did may have offended you, but in the words of Stephen Fry 'well so f***ing what?' Being offended isn't a right, it's a personal choice so while people are more than within their rights to find anything offensive the flipside of that is that they don't really have the right to tell someone who isn't offended that they should be offended too. Yeah, that's literally called morals and standards, dude. And?
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Apr 10, 2018 12:16:08 GMT -5
I just think "deliberately offensive heels" come off like cheap, desperate heat. Looking for other options to be a good heel that are inoffensive leads to more creativity, not less.
Like I love Marty Scurll, he's an amazing performer. Yes, I know crowds love him, but that's because he's good at his job. He still knows how to work the crowd and get heat on the babyfaces, and he doesn't need to truly piss people off to accomplish it.
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Apr 10, 2018 13:17:20 GMT -5
My main question is, why does wrestling still need these "morality tales" in the first place today? At its core, wrestling is a simulated sport, not a dramatic TV series. It's an exhibition everywhere. Personally, did Bliss vs. Jax even need the "body shaming angle"? I don't think it did, and the Briscoes don't need to be using pride flags as weapons. When I see stuff like that, or when I heard that god awful promo Mahal cut on Nakamura, I didn't care about the heel getting theirs in the end, because the storyline has already taken a turn into bad taste. I've already been taken out of it. Even with HHH vs. Booker, when fans talk about "oh, Booker should have won in the end!" If I were on creative, I would have lobbied against doing the racial angle in the first place. The problem wasn't that the bad guy bigot won, the problems began when HHH made those comments. It never should have been inserted in the story to begin with. Just make your wrestling storylines about the rivalries and championships, and fans will buy tickets. They don't need to have basic ideas of tolerance reinforced by an offensive heel getting theirs, because most modern wrestling audiences have different attitudes from previous generations. Because wrestling, at its core, is a KIDS' SHOW. No matter if adults like it too- adults like Harry Potter, but they're childrens' books at heart. Adults may love My Little Pony, but it's a kids' show at heart. And honestly, if you try to make those things more adult for the adult fans? You ruin what makes them so special. And because pro wrestling is a kids' show at heart, there's always going to be a morality tale in there. Yes, most- not all, but MOST adult fans already know that it's a bad thing...but that kid in the crowd may not yet. And you have to teach that kid these things are bad, and there are consequences to it. Saying that the storylines have to be about rivalries and championships is to say "who cares about the kids in the audience, it should be about what I WANT!"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2018 13:28:58 GMT -5
The big issue here is that the concept of being offended is an arbitrary thing, there is no right or wrong since every single one of us has different tolerances and to use a term I hate, triggers. Like pain, some of us may have a low tolerance while others are much higher, there's no real way of knowing. What the Briscoes (or any other wrestler mentioned) did may have offended you, but in the words of Stephen Fry 'well so f***ing what?' Being offended isn't a right, it's a personal choice so while people are more than within their rights to find anything offensive the flipside of that is that they don't really have the right to tell someone who isn't offended that they should be offended too. I loathe that Stephen Fry quote. So, I didn't bring it up in this thread because I didn't want to make it personal but my parents are gay. My sister is gay. I don't CHOOSE to get offended when people take shots at gay people. There isn't a moment when I go 'Huh, I guess I better choose my emotional response to this.' It is a raw, visceral response to people I care about being used as a prop most of the time. I don't pick it. It happens. I don't like experiencing it. I don't get to CHOOSE it. People who say that thing have no idea what it is to be truly targeted, or be in a marginalized group. If people think getting offended is a choice, they literally don't understand what actually being offended feels like. They have an idea of what they think it is, but they've never REALLY felt that white hot anger and that punch in the gut disgust at knowing how impotent you are against the world.
|
|
|
Post by Rudy Gobert Fadeaway on Apr 10, 2018 13:41:44 GMT -5
The big issue here is that the concept of being offended is an arbitrary thing, there is no right or wrong since every single one of us has different tolerances and to use a term I hate, triggers. Like pain, some of us may have a low tolerance while others are much higher, there's no real way of knowing. What the Briscoes (or any other wrestler mentioned) did may have offended you, but in the words of Stephen Fry 'well so f***ing what?' Being offended isn't a right, it's a personal choice so while people are more than within their rights to find anything offensive the flipside of that is that they don't really have the right to tell someone who isn't offended that they should be offended too. I loathe that Stephen Fry quote. So, I didn't bring it up in this thread because I didn't want to make it personal but my parents are gay. My sister is gay. I don't CHOOSE to get offended when people take shots at gay people. There isn't a moment when I go 'Huh, I guess I better choose my emotional response to this.' It is a raw, visceral response to people I care about being used as a prop most of the time. I don't pick it. It happens. I don't like experiencing it. I don't get to CHOOSE it. People who say that thing have no idea what it is to be truly targeted, or be in a marginalized group. If people think getting offended is a choice, they literally don't understand what actually being offended feels like. They have an idea of what they think it is, but they've never REALLY felt that white hot anger and that punch in the gut disgust at knowing how impotent you are against the world.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Apr 10, 2018 13:52:41 GMT -5
My main question is, why does wrestling still need these "morality tales" in the first place today? At its core, wrestling is a simulated sport, not a dramatic TV series. It's an exhibition everywhere. Personally, did Bliss vs. Jax even need the "body shaming angle"? I don't think it did, and the Briscoes don't need to be using pride flags as weapons. When I see stuff like that, or when I heard that god awful promo Mahal cut on Nakamura, I didn't care about the heel getting theirs in the end, because the storyline has already taken a turn into bad taste. I've already been taken out of it. Even with HHH vs. Booker, when fans talk about "oh, Booker should have won in the end!" If I were on creative, I would have lobbied against doing the racial angle in the first place. The problem wasn't that the bad guy bigot won, the problems began when HHH made those comments. It never should have been inserted in the story to begin with. Just make your wrestling storylines about the rivalries and championships, and fans will buy tickets. They don't need to have basic ideas of tolerance reinforced by an offensive heel getting theirs, because most modern wrestling audiences have different attitudes from previous generations. Because wrestling, at its core, is a KIDS' SHOW. No matter if adults like it too- adults like Harry Potter, but they're childrens' books at heart. Adults may love My Little Pony, but it's a kids' show at heart. And honestly, if you try to make those things more adult for the adult fans? You ruin what makes them so special. And because pro wrestling is a kids' show at heart, there's always going to be a morality tale in there. Yes, most- not all, but MOST adult fans already know that it's a bad thing...but that kid in the crowd may not yet. And you have to teach that kid these things are bad, and there are consequences to it. Saying that the storylines have to be about rivalries and championships is to say "who cares about the kids in the audience, it should be about what I WANT!" Not necessarily. It can appeal to many demographics, depending on the company. I once watched a video of a indie wrestling show for families, where a gay babyface and his friend Mr. Cat went over an anti gay tag team. I'm fine with morality tales like that, because it was appropriate for that kind of show. But when I was a kid, I cared about who was champion. It meant that they were the best, so it was important and exciting. People get into wrestling for a variety of reasons, and that's been something that's worked for years. I'm sure there are plenty of young fans who are caught up in the competitive narrative. IMO, Booker T and HHH could have been a great program without the racial crap. It's the same with other controversial subjects. Wrestling at its most basic form is exciting enough as it is without that stuff. Okada/Omega or Cena/Styles wouldn't have improved by any of those guys calling their opponent a slur.
|
|
Fade
Patti Mayonnaise
Posts: 38,306
|
Post by Fade on Apr 10, 2018 13:55:16 GMT -5
The big issue here is that the concept of being offended is an arbitrary thing, there is no right or wrong since every single one of us has different tolerances and to use a term I hate, triggers. Like pain, some of us may have a low tolerance while others are much higher, there's no real way of knowing. What the Briscoes (or any other wrestler mentioned) did may have offended you, but in the words of Stephen Fry 'well so f***ing what?' Being offended isn't a right, it's a personal choice so while people are more than within their rights to find anything offensive the flipside of that is that they don't really have the right to tell someone who isn't offended that they should be offended too. I love that Stephen Fry quote. Online. Day-to-day, I think back on it constantly.
|
|
|
Post by Final Countdown Jones on Apr 10, 2018 16:23:55 GMT -5
The big issue here is that the concept of being offended is an arbitrary thing, there is no right or wrong since every single one of us has different tolerances and to use a term I hate, triggers. Like pain, some of us may have a low tolerance while others are much higher, there's no real way of knowing. What the Briscoes (or any other wrestler mentioned) did may have offended you, but in the words of Stephen Fry 'well so f***ing what?' Being offended isn't a right, it's a personal choice so while people are more than within their rights to find anything offensive the flipside of that is that they don't really have the right to tell someone who isn't offended that they should be offended too. That's not what's happening in this thread. The literal opposite of that is happening. People keep coming in here to spin the same 'But how is this different from regular heel heat?' talking point talked to death in the previous ten pages, and the conversation has been this constant struggle for people to be allowed to be upset, because people keep coming in saying there's nothing here and people are just too sensitive or looking for reasons to get angry. Nobody is arguing being offended is a right, nobody is trying to drag people into also hating and boycotting the Briscoes, but the conversation isn't a defense of people being allowed to not hate these guys, it's the complete opposite. I have seen threads on this board where someone in WWE tells a kinda lame gay joke or something to that effect, and no genuine offense is shown by anyone in that thread, even from the people who you can usually find in threads like these upset by things--they're too busy just saying it was kinda shite as a joke--but multiple people swarm into the thread to talk about they can't believe people are getting offended by it and everyone is too sensitive. Even though no offense took place. Even though posts repeatedly address them by saying "Nobody's been offended by this". That is the tenor of threads like this. That's always the tenor of threads like this.
|
|
|
Post by ben:friendship frog on Apr 10, 2018 19:09:37 GMT -5
Have the Briscoes said anything about the incident? Probably not because people are just blowing it out of proportion. They have nothing to gain by defending or detracting from it. I was there. I have been attacked for being gay (I'm not, I'm bisexual but like they know the difference?), I grew up around my parent's friends where homophobia wasn't a looked down upon silent thought, it was an outwardly accepted norm. My first kiss was in a dark forest so no one could see, I cried as I came out to my parents, I cried as my parents explained my coming out to my sisters as I didn't have the guts to tell them myself. I have yet to summon the courage to hold a boy's hand in public because of comments and the very real possibility of being attacked. So, when I spend my own hard worked for money, I don't want to watch my life be used, by complete bellends, for cheap heat. More importantly, myself, and others, don't want to feel threatened because of who we are as people, we have felt emotional and physical pain thanks to these views. Remember that. I have a wonky tooth, a limp and did, at the time, have a black eye because of the views. But, as you sit there, at your next wrestling event, with no possible threat to you, please don't overreact.. The fact this thread has gone 10± pages and is not just maybe 2 pages of "yeah, they're pricks" is why this is still an issue.
|
|
|
Post by axebomber on Apr 10, 2018 20:13:15 GMT -5
This thread has been deeper than that. Has anyone denied that they're pricks? That's their thing. Sure, They're living the gimmick but so did guys like Bret Hart. The line that is not to be crossed is different for everyone. Especially for older fans because of societal shifts. I'm Canadian so I thought HBK's flag abuse was too far. I got hot. It's been enlightening to read this lengthy mostly polite discussion about the complexities of this event. My takeaway is to stop getting annoyed at people being offended at what I think is trivial.
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Apr 10, 2018 20:19:42 GMT -5
Not necessarily. It can appeal to many demographics, depending on the company. I once watched a video of a indie wrestling show for families, where a gay babyface and his friend Mr. Cat went over an anti gay tag team. I'm fine with morality tales like that, because it was appropriate for that kind of show. But when I was a kid, I cared about who was champion. It meant that they were the best, so it was important and exciting. People get into wrestling for a variety of reasons, and that's been something that's worked for years. I'm sure there are plenty of young fans who are caught up in the competitive narrative. IMO, Booker T and HHH could have been a great program without the racial crap. It's the same with other controversial subjects. Wrestling at its most basic form is exciting enough as it is without that stuff. Okada/Omega or Cena/Styles wouldn't have improved by any of those guys calling their opponent a slur. But even then, the fact you said that there are morality tales that are fair and appropriate as well is admitting there IS a place in the sport for morality tales. The fact of the matter is that, every right-minded person knows these things are terrible. But even then, even if everyone knows its terrible, you still can't say "okay, we did our job. Sweep it under the rug"...because if you sweep it under the rug and say "We won, stop discussing it"- then it becomes a taboo...and there's a time in every kids' life where they're an edgelord and they get drawn to taboo subjects. That alone is a reason that even if everyone knows it's wrong, you still have to reinforce the subject: if you don't discuss it and tell people how wrong it is early and WHY it's so wrong, then eventually someone else- likely someone who IS a racist or IS a homophobe or IS against them- is going to tell them, and they're not going to tell them what you want.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2018 22:00:31 GMT -5
Probably not because people are just blowing it out of proportion. They have nothing to gain by defending or detracting from it. I was there. I have been attacked for being gay (I'm not, I'm bisexual but like they know the difference?), I grew up around my parent's friends where homophobia wasn't a looked down upon silent thought, it was an outwardly accepted norm. My first kiss was in a dark forest so no one could see, I cried as I came out to my parents, I cried as my parents explained my coming out to my sisters as I didn't have the guts to tell them myself. I have yet to summon the courage to hold a boy's hand in public because of comments and the very real possibility of being attacked. So, when I spend my own hard worked for money, I don't want to watch my life be used, by complete bellends, for cheap heat. More importantly, myself, and others, don't want to feel threatened because of who we are as people, we have felt emotional and physical pain thanks to these views. Remember that. I have a wonky tooth, a limp and did, at the time, have a black eye because of the views. But, as you sit there, at your next wrestling event, with no possible threat to you, please don't overreact.. The fact this thread has gone 10± pages and is not just maybe 2 pages of "yeah, they're pricks" is why this is still an issue. I'm sorry you've had to go through that dude, and thank you for the eloquent and heartfelt post.
|
|