|
|
Post by ThereIsNoAbsurdistOnlyZuul on Aug 24, 2013 0:00:19 GMT -5
You guys probably already know this but the term "IWC" is generally used to describe smart marks. That's all it is it's a nicer way of saying "Smart mark" So your guys who love Joe, Daniels, AJ, Bryan Danielson, CM Punk and refuse to admit any wrong doing or support anyone different then those types get labelled as the "IWC" because they are the stereotype of the IWC. Of course everyone on a forum is apart of the IWC and yes by definition we all are members of the IWC but when people are "Anti-IWC" they are basically anti smark. Again, it's a nice way of saying smark. Realistically if you understand that wrestling is pre-determined, and follow contracts and such like that, then you are a 'Smart Mark.' Talking about it on the Internet then makes you a member of the IWC. Realistically we are in the information age now, there is no real stigma anymore, except by people who don't 'get' the internet, given that in North America alone you have a population penetration of 78.6% for people having some form of internet connection. [see: www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm ]. Internet users are not a minority, in the First World they are the majority. Further to know of the existence of these group makes you inclusive to the groups, you can't dismiss the Smart Marks and the IWC. Ergo this entire thing becomes somewhat pointless. So the term for 'IWC' is stupid, because we all have different points of view, and anyone who can use the term aa a pejorative would be cut equally. |
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Aug 24, 2013 0:05:15 GMT -5
What does that make you, though? You're guilty of all the things you said, but only in reference to TNA. So refusing to admit any wrong doing with Bryan, Punk et al is mockable, but defying all criticism of TNA isn't? Do you not see that this how you are perceived? This isn't a TNA thread and I feel you're trying to bait me into an argument so I'll be quick: I'm not biased towards TNA. I've said many times over on the TNA board how I dislike EGO, Knockouts, MMA guys etc I am a fan of the product but not endlessly biased. What do I consider myself? A big TNA fan. A sign of "smarky" behaviour is the recent Punk thing. Most people here loved it and thought it was amazing and immediately began defending Punk. If it were Cena or anyone who isn't a smark favourite we'd of had the "X IS UNPROFESSIONAL!" debate but because CM Punk did it everything is okay. I'm not trying to bait you. The topic was Internet Wrestling community, and I simply brought up your own (perpetual) track record of being super defensive of TNA in the face of almost all criticism. From your standpoint, you believe yourself correct. Just as someone who thinks Bryan deserves to be on top of WWE would think that they're correct. The problem, however, is that you (like you accuse of them) never admit when you are actually wrong and try to deflect a lot of legitimate criticism. In threads like this, you condemn those who like what you personally don't. Don't throw stones if you live in a glass house, my friend. Because you are the very thing you're chastising... but yet don't see it. |
|
|
|
Post by Bear Skin Rug on Aug 24, 2013 0:09:19 GMT -5
You guys probably already know this but the term "IWC" is generally used to describe smart marks. That's all it is it's a nicer way of saying "Smart mark" So your guys who love Joe, Daniels, AJ, Bryan Danielson, CM Punk and refuse to admit any wrong doing or support anyone different then those types get labelled as the "IWC" because they are the stereotype of the IWC. Of course everyone on a forum is apart of the IWC and yes by definition we all are members of the IWC but when people are "Anti-IWC" they are basically anti smark. Again, it's a nice way of saying smark. Actually more like "elitest smart mark" since smart mark means anybody who has knowledge of how pro wrestling works. Here's another term for it: straw man. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2013 0:13:28 GMT -5
It sends me right up the wall whenever anyone is like "Well, the IWC would say this." The internet is a communication tool. It's really stupid to pretend like everyone gets the same opinion on something just because of how they choose to talk about it. It's not like in 1975 we'd all be talking about the "phone community" having an opinion. That made my day. lol The phone community was cutthroat, luckily Mean Gene was the head moderator to keep things in line. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Aug 24, 2013 0:13:47 GMT -5
Indy fanboy.
Oh no, people like indy wrestlers/wrestling, it's clearly the end of the world because of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2013 0:15:56 GMT -5
 aww, what's wrong with the promotion? It doesn't have any big stars but I'm sure they work hard  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2013 0:17:51 GMT -5
aww, what's wrong with the promotion? It doesn't have any big stars but I'm sure they work hard Coming to you live from the promoters mother's basement. IWC: In Your House!!!!!!!!! |
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Aug 24, 2013 0:32:49 GMT -5
The sad fact is we live in a world of insecurity. Some people strangely HAVE to believe that their own preference is absolute and correct to validate it. And in the process you get a battle between two sides (mainstream vs counterculture) that are basically the exact same animal.
They're both insecure elitists that believe one side is the truth, and that the other are mindless sheep. Indy wrestling guy believes his undiscovered, under-appreciated stars really are the best in the world, but are simply being held back by an unfair corporate conglomerate who cater to brainless marks, and who do not base their opportunities on actual skill or ability. The other side believes that WWE IS wrestling, but is just as paranoid; threatened that somehow Indy guy is laughing at him for being so easily duped, and thus he chooses to adopt the belief that indy wrestlers are all small, spot-monkeys that are too flippy and silly to make it in the big time and that John Cena is automatically the best because WWE has him on top. The truth is however: they're both idiots. There is no absolutes. You like what you like, and there's no such thing as wrong. And if you feel like you have to tear down to build up your argument, that means you're a fool made out of straw.
|
|
The Ichi
Patti Mayonnaise
AGGRESSIVE Executive Janitor of the Third Floor Manager's Bathroom
Posts: 37,657 
|
Post by The Ichi on Aug 24, 2013 8:05:11 GMT -5
"Workrate". Simply because everytime I see it used here is in a passive agressive, mocking fashion (ie. I'M SORRY THAT MATCH DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH WORKRATE FOR YOU BUT I LIKED IT, OKAY?  ) Maybe I'm just lucky, but I've never seen the word being used seriously since the late 90s. |
|
|
|
Post by molson5 on Aug 24, 2013 8:42:05 GMT -5
You guys probably already know this but the term "IWC" is generally used to describe smart marks. That's all it is it's a nicer way of saying "Smart mark" So your guys who love Joe, Daniels, AJ, Bryan Danielson, CM Punk and refuse to admit any wrong doing or support anyone different then those types get labelled as the "IWC" because they are the stereotype of the IWC. Of course everyone on a forum is apart of the IWC and yes by definition we all are members of the IWC but when people are "Anti-IWC" they are basically anti smark. Again, it's a nice way of saying smark. Realistically if you understand that wrestling is pre-determined, and follow contracts and such like that, then you are a 'Smart Mark.' Talking about it on the Internet then makes you a member of the IWC. Realistically we are in the information age now, there is no real stigma anymore, except by people who don't 'get' the internet, given that in North America alone you have a population penetration of 78.6% for people having some form of internet connection. [see: www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm ]. Internet users are not a minority, in the First World they are the majority. Further to know of the existence of these group makes you inclusive to the groups, you can't dismiss the Smart Marks and the IWC. Ergo this entire thing becomes somewhat pointless. So the term for 'IWC' is stupid, because we all have different points of view, and anyone who can use the term aa a pejorative would be cut equally. But when people say "IWC" or "smark", that's not the definition they're intending. Language doesn't have an inherent meaning. If a guy starts calling his TV a "potato", and then all of friends do too, when they say "potato", they're talking about the thing in the living room they watch stuff on. It really doesn't matter that the origin of the word "potato" is the Spanish word used to describe the food. To them, it means something else. "IWC" does not mean wrestling fans who go on the internet, and "smark" does not mean wrestling fans who know wrestling is fake. And use of those terms does not mean that the speaker believes that everyone on the internet has the same opinion. Instead, they're referring to a specific type of fan who has particular views and attitudes about pro wrestling. It's not a rigidly defined group, but it is a broadly identifiable one. There's no other name for that type of fan that has stuck. |
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Order Inferno on Aug 24, 2013 9:13:30 GMT -5
It's kind of funny really, a decade and a half ago, a lot of the people who derisively bring up IWC, workrate and claim people don't enjoy the matches of a bland/past it mainstream guy is because they only like Johnny McIndyflip and think he should be main eventing everywhere would be the ones looking down their noses at people enjoying the work of Bret and Shawn because ECW have Sabu. Some people just like to imagine themselves as the cool guy, on the edge of a community, being contrary because it gets people to pay attention to them they wouldn't otherwise get.
Of course, some have that attitude because they think they're standing up for the wrestlers and the art of wrestling, mistakenly believing, like some wrestlers do, that it was the internet fans who destroyed Keyfabe rather than the wrestlers and promoters. ECW, the WWF then finally WCW didn't just peel back the curtain to reveal the wizard, they ripped it off the railing, threw it on some drawing pins in the bottom of a trashcan and set it on fire then cut a shoot promo on how the curtain was holding them down because it kept the booker warm. The big promotions ended keyfabe and turned our perception of wrestling from that of a sporting contest into a performance art and compare it to the standards set by matches we've enjoyed, and use terminology we all know now because the companies let us know it... I do wonder if Ballerinas, Ballerinos and portions of the ballet fanbase get upset because fans use terms like Pirouette, Tombé and Plié to describe the motions of dancers, or say they've seen better performances of a work by a local company.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oh Cry Me a Screwball on Aug 24, 2013 9:29:08 GMT -5
If we are going to jump out of just wrestling and into Internet fanbases as a whole, the word "fanboy" needs to die in a fire.
Also, I feel the word "overrated" could be trimmed quite a bit as well. It more or less the word that everyone uses when they want to say they dislike something, but don't want to say it straight up, so they say something has too many fans, which really isn't a valid complaint at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by RedSmile on Aug 24, 2013 12:04:43 GMT -5
The term IWC is often misused as a synonym for elitist.
And the most annoying phrase that I've read on wrestling boards is along the lines of: "He is nothing more than a midcarder" or anything that uses "midcard" as an insult. It is ignorant and elitist all at the same time.
|
|
|
|
Post by ThereIsNoAbsurdistOnlyZuul on Aug 24, 2013 22:48:59 GMT -5
Realistically if you understand that wrestling is pre-determined, and follow contracts and such like that, then you are a 'Smart Mark.' Talking about it on the Internet then makes you a member of the IWC. Realistically we are in the information age now, there is no real stigma anymore, except by people who don't 'get' the internet, given that in North America alone you have a population penetration of 78.6% for people having some form of internet connection. [see: www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm ]. Internet users are not a minority, in the First World they are the majority. Further to know of the existence of these group makes you inclusive to the groups, you can't dismiss the Smart Marks and the IWC. Ergo this entire thing becomes somewhat pointless. So the term for 'IWC' is stupid, because we all have different points of view, and anyone who can use the term aa a pejorative would be cut equally. But when people say "IWC" or "smark", that's not the definition they're intending. Language doesn't have an inherent meaning. If a guy starts calling his TV a "potato", and then all of friends do too, when they say "potato", they're talking about the thing in the living room they watch stuff on. It really doesn't matter that the origin of the word "potato" is the Spanish word used to describe the food. To them, it means something else. "IWC" does not mean wrestling fans who go on the internet, and "smark" does not mean wrestling fans who know wrestling is fake. And use of those terms does not mean that the speaker believes that everyone on the internet has the same opinion. Instead, they're referring to a specific type of fan who has particular views and attitudes about pro wrestling. It's not a rigidly defined group, but it is a broadly identifiable one. There's no other name for that type of fan that has stuck. Then... don't label them? I mean this is sort of a logical disconnect, use an ill-fitting term because it is easy, rather than use a specific term for a specific instance, and then say 'Well it's close.' Horsehoes and handgrenades (maybe bocce ball). "IWC" and "Smart Mark" are not positive terms, they are derisive and dismissive. They serve no purpose in furthering the dialog, and by using them the person is projecting their bias and opinion of the person they are naming. It is subtractive, at best, grossly reductionist, at worst.  And yanno what, I CAN be nitpicky about illogically applied and used slang. That you disagree with my stance there does not invalidate my assessment. The semantics of things matter, those niggling little details are really how we add context and shading to our perception of reality. So let's clarify: 1. IWC is the Internet Wrestling Community. A.k.a., those nerdlingers who talk wrasslin' on internet. The ONLY people who use that are people involved in wrestling, or people talking about it on the internet. So if you use the word, you are either A) an industry insiders; B) a member of the IWC. So slinging this phrase about on a message board is silly. Simply silly. Especially since internet communities and socialization has since deviated from a place of stigma (except for locations/sites that are not longer en vogue {not the group}). So the snort and eyeroll from people refuting any criticism from the 'IWC' just proves how that person doesn't 'get' the internet. 2. Smart Mark, an insult used by wrestlers for guy who thought they knew stuff about the industry, but really didn't. Now it is used at a knowledgeable fan. It is still a negative term. After all Mark is still the term for guys who believes 'it's real!' So both terms only work against wrestling fans, who are 'in the know,' and both are really just insults. So the only people to take umbrage or know the term are those selfsame IWC members/Smart Marks, and by using that term you place yourself firmly in that camp. So... self burn? That is the dissonance I spoke of. Further using that term because one believes that one's views buck bucks the perceived consensus of that group does not exclude one from that group. I.e. using Smart Mark/IWC in an argument (or discussion, or conversation, etc., etc.) means you are a part of them. Not apart from them. A population can have different beliefs, thoughts, ideas and the like. Now two of us agree on everything. Which... yanno, is a thing. It is a fundamental principle of consciousness and stuff. Either way....  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2013 0:14:31 GMT -5
The whole "internet wrestling community" and wrestling fans "on the internet" is simply a completely outdated reference in 2013. I popped pretty huge for the earlier post in this thread comparing it to a "phone community" for having an opinion in the 1970s. The term has roots in the reality of..... about 15-20 years ago. In the early to mid-90s, a very small percentage of wrestling fans were actually on the beginnings of the internet, message boards, newsgroups (rec.sport.pro-wrestling anyone?) and the like. The opinion expressed by that very small fraction of the fan base was not generally indicative of the wrestling fan base as a whole, so many of the wrestlers and executives in the business dismissed what was said by the "internet fans." The fact is, it's now 2013. The internet is a part of the daily lives of the vast majority of wrestling fans. It's not a tiny fraction of the population anymore. The term has just become outdated. The other terms that often get thrown around and are often misused is the "smart mark" and "smark" terms. I may be mistaken (correct me if I'm wrong and if there's historically somewhere that the term was used which pre-dates this), but I believe the first time anyone used the term "smart marks," it was during a Brian Pillman promo in ECW during 1996. Before that, the sheet readers and internet fans, somewhat proudly, would call themselves "smart fans." As would many wrestlers. They were fans that were "smart to the business" or felt the need to point out that they were "smart fans" rather than "marks." They were more informed, thus more elite than "marks!" Being a mark, to smart fans, was a bad thing. It meant you bought into wrestling as real. It meant you were stupid. Yet.... as Pillman would point out in his promo, even the ECW "smart fans" are in actuality some of the biggest marks of all who bought into whatever they heard. Calling those proudly "smart" fans "marks," or just "smart versions of a mark," was designed to talk down to them and get heel heat when those fans of ECW were trying to feel superior to the marks. Over time, "smart marks" or "smarks" evolved into just a term to describe fans who more heavily watch and study wrestling than the casual fans do. It became less of a derogatory term, which is how Pillman intended it. "What's a smart mark? A mark with a high IQ?" www.youtube.com/watch?v=xM9dUFzN-bA |
|
|
|
Post by ThereIsNoAbsurdistOnlyZuul on Aug 25, 2013 1:38:54 GMT -5
The whole "internet wrestling community" and wrestling fans "on the internet" is simply a completely outdated reference in 2013. I popped pretty huge for the earlier post in this thread comparing it to a "phone community" for having an opinion in the 1970s. The term has roots in the reality of..... about 15-20 years ago. In the early to mid-90s, a very small percentage of wrestling fans were actually on the beginnings of the internet, message boards, newsgroups (rec.sport.pro-wrestling anyone?) and the like. The opinion expressed by that very small fraction of the fan base was not generally indicative of the wrestling fan base as a whole, so many of the wrestlers and executives in the business dismissed what was said by the "internet fans." The fact is, it's now 2013. The internet is a part of the daily lives of the vast majority of wrestling fans. It's not a tiny fraction of the population anymore. The term has just become outdated. The other terms that often get thrown around and are often misused is the "smart mark" and "smark" terms. I may be mistaken (correct me if I'm wrong and if there's historically somewhere that the term was used which pre-dates this), but I believe the first time anyone used the term "smart marks," it was during a Brian Pillman promo in ECW during 1996. Before that, the sheet readers and internet fans, somewhat proudly, would call themselves "smart fans." As would many wrestlers. They were fans that were "smart to the business" or felt the need to point out that they were "smart fans" rather than "marks." They were more informed, thus more elite than "marks!" Being a mark, to smart fans, was a bad thing. It meant you bought into wrestling as real. It meant you were stupid. Yet.... as Pillman would point out in his promo, even the ECW "smart fans" are in actuality some of the biggest marks of all who bought into whatever they heard. Calling those proudly "smart" fans "marks," or just "smart versions of a mark," was designed to talk down to them and get heel heat when those fans of ECW were trying to feel superior to the marks. Over time, "smart marks" or "smarks" evolved into just a term to describe fans who more heavily watch and study wrestling than the casual fans do. It became less of a derogatory term, which is how Pillman intended it. "What's a smart mark? A mark with a high IQ?" www.youtube.com/watch?v=xM9dUFzN-bAAnd yet it IS still used in a derogatory fashion to this day. Even here on this board within the last few days. So it isn't less of a derogatory word. I know when I've been called it, or had my opinions deemed in that field by others, it was not doing so in a positive light. See the thrust of my issue is this, if you disagree with someone you can say: "I disagree," or "Dude, you're wrong." That is fine, that still shows the possibility of discourse on the topic, even if it does not change anyone's mind. When you say: "What a Smark," or "Of course you think that you are a member of the IWC," the way you are using those terms is clearly indicative of you dismissing their point of view wholesale based on defined understanding in your head, a prejudice if you will. It isn't limited to that either, there are several terms that are equitable in all of this: overrated, fanboy, etc., etc. By doing this sort or classification, these mental shortcuts From that place we engage in thinking on tribal lines, we create mental short cuts that allow us to excise thoughts or beliefs that differ from and confront our own. We allow laziness and discomfort to trump understanding. I, for one, fail to see any justification for the use of those terms (and more broadly that kind of thinking in general beyond this topic) as is based in sound, reasoned thinking.. |
|
|
|
Post by Oh Cry Me a Screwball on Aug 26, 2013 6:29:37 GMT -5
I think raising too many hairs about Internet fans and the IWC being an outdated term because everyone uses the Internet in 2013 is not that good of an idea.
Lots of vocabulary we have in the Modern English language exist because of things that no longer exist or have changed significantly. It would be like campaigning to have the Save icon in Microsoft Word changed because no one uses floppy disks or refusing to call movies "film" or "tapes" because no one uses physical media any more.
|
|
)
