Post by Brother Nero....Wolfe on Jan 6, 2014 0:27:30 GMT -5
Well, it depends. If it's like a thread about "Should X happen?" or "Was the plot bad?" I will respond to it, sure. I think there's enough about storytelling to have an objective discussion about it. Otherwise...it depends on how good humored the thread is. Like, discussions about a wrestler sucking? Generally don't like those, because they often evolve into people trying to convince someone to stop having fun with a wrestler and it honestly keeps me from actually even wanting to participate on those discussions because like, what's the best case scenario there? Someone grants me their approval to like a wrestler? I mean I surely am not going to reason someone into saying "You are right, this man has been entertaining me all along and I couldn't see it until your beautiful reasoning showed that to me" so those threads tend to go nowhere.
On the other hand, when a thread is clearly a good natured discussion on it, I'm like "Yeah, might as well." Like--can't remember who created it--a thread that went "For the record, I hate Daniel Bryan. I understand you like him. JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT." That was pretty light hearted and I'm all for arguments like that.
I prefer talking about plot development and stuff like that. That's a bit of a more objective discussion, like "I think this is a bad plot because of a blatant disregard for continuity" or something like that.
Now for the specific sides the OP mentioned...
"WWE is too cartoony. If they'd just put real wrestlers out there and let them wrestle they'd be huge."
"WWE is so boring. They need to give people more personality or bring back gimmicks if they want mainstream success again"
Well, I can't imagine a discussion there, and here's why:
I'm the cartoon side--namely I'll defend the living shit out of the silly, goofy crap WWE puts out. Now, what argument could I possibly have with someone who doesn't enjoy the goofy things? This isn't about what's better, it's about what ice cream flavour you prefer. Having an argument about it would be pointless, unless you are talking about which of the two is "better for business." And that's an argument I have very little interest in because...I really care about that so little I struggle to even put it in words how little I care about it. So there just isn't much of an active debate as there is this thing where people act civil about it, which, by the way, is the reason why this is the only place on the internet that makes discussing wrestling fun. Everyone is just self-depreciating enough that no one takes their own opinions seriously enough to go grrrrr on people. I mean for example, I like Zack Ryder. Dude is my favorite wrestler. He kind of sucks in certain aspects. I'm okay with that.
I mean there's talking between the two sides, sure, but there isn't much of an argument because, end of the day, mostly everyone here understands that when it's clear that sometimes people are looking for different things, it becomes less of a screaming match and more of a "Man, I totally enjoy that Wyatt corny shit. It's the corniest. I love it." and "Yeah, I get you, but I don't like the corny stuff so much." So...yeah, there's a lot of talking here. People don't argue about cartoonish vs serious too much because there's not much of an argument there, just a disagreement, and from what I've seen mostly everyone is cool with that. As they should!
On the other hand, when a thread is clearly a good natured discussion on it, I'm like "Yeah, might as well." Like--can't remember who created it--a thread that went "For the record, I hate Daniel Bryan. I understand you like him. JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT." That was pretty light hearted and I'm all for arguments like that.
I prefer talking about plot development and stuff like that. That's a bit of a more objective discussion, like "I think this is a bad plot because of a blatant disregard for continuity" or something like that.
Now for the specific sides the OP mentioned...
"WWE is too cartoony. If they'd just put real wrestlers out there and let them wrestle they'd be huge."
"WWE is so boring. They need to give people more personality or bring back gimmicks if they want mainstream success again"
Well, I can't imagine a discussion there, and here's why:
I'm the cartoon side--namely I'll defend the living shit out of the silly, goofy crap WWE puts out. Now, what argument could I possibly have with someone who doesn't enjoy the goofy things? This isn't about what's better, it's about what ice cream flavour you prefer. Having an argument about it would be pointless, unless you are talking about which of the two is "better for business." And that's an argument I have very little interest in because...I really care about that so little I struggle to even put it in words how little I care about it. So there just isn't much of an active debate as there is this thing where people act civil about it, which, by the way, is the reason why this is the only place on the internet that makes discussing wrestling fun. Everyone is just self-depreciating enough that no one takes their own opinions seriously enough to go grrrrr on people. I mean for example, I like Zack Ryder. Dude is my favorite wrestler. He kind of sucks in certain aspects. I'm okay with that.
I mean there's talking between the two sides, sure, but there isn't much of an argument because, end of the day, mostly everyone here understands that when it's clear that sometimes people are looking for different things, it becomes less of a screaming match and more of a "Man, I totally enjoy that Wyatt corny shit. It's the corniest. I love it." and "Yeah, I get you, but I don't like the corny stuff so much." So...yeah, there's a lot of talking here. People don't argue about cartoonish vs serious too much because there's not much of an argument there, just a disagreement, and from what I've seen mostly everyone is cool with that. As they should!
