|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on May 10, 2014 2:05:37 GMT -5
I both sympathize and don't sympathize. Every human being has the right to privacy, to deal with their issues and problems away from the glare of the spotlight. But with that said, when you become a celebrity you really do forfeit some of that right; celebrities are public figures, and every move they make and every word they say is going to be subject to public scrutiny. Its messed up, it honestly is, but that is the reality of it. IF you want to maintain your privacy, then don't become a celebrity; if you have a passion for acting you can indulge it with local theater and small film roles, but practically everyone who pursues acting wants to make it to Hollywood because that is where the big money is. If you have a passion for music you can indulge it by playing local gigs-but almost everyone who seeks out a musical career wants to make it big because that is where the real money is. It is no different for wrestling; Phil Brooks could have simply wrestled local indy shows and written articles for wrestling magazines, but he wanted to make it to WWE because that is where the big money is. I applaud his hard work and effort for making it so far-but when he got to WWE he became a celebrity, and his private life became very, very public. To make an example of what I am saying; I am quite sure that Adam Copeland, Amy Dumas, and Matt Hardy would have preferred sort out their difficulties between themselves, but because they were working for WWE their issues with each other very swiftly became a public matter. To their credit, it seems they did eventually reach some sort of understand, but the issues that came up between them remain a topic of speculation among fans to this day. That is the price you pay for being a celebrity, WWE superstar. With all this in mind, I can say that I appreciate Phil Brooks desire for privacy. But he has honestly not helped himself on a number of levels. By exiting WWE in the fashion he did and being so tight lipped he is only causing fans to speculate more and more, which means they will just hound him and other parties for details. He honestly does deserve to be able to sort whatever problems drove him from WWE on his own, but because he is a celebrity that simply will not happen, and he could probably save himself and others so much of this annoyance with a single youtube video or blog post detailing what happened and why he made the decisions he did; it would never completely end the circus, but it would put so much of it to rest that it would almost certainly bring him a degree of peace. But, he prefers to keep it private-and I say good for him for it, he has every right to if he so wishes. But if that is his decision, he needs to be prepared to live with the potential consequences of it, given his status as a celebrity. The only real answer will be time, and even then it will never completely go away. On that same note, as some others have pointed out, he hasn't helped himself by still making some prominent public appearances, such as at a hockey game. He could just as easily watch a game at home on TV, or he could take out a private luxury box so he can enjoy it free of the camera glare-but instead he wants to sit in the audience like anyone else. Except he is not anyone else, he is a former WWE superstar and so when he appears in public like that it will draw attention. It really is little wonder that so many celebrities end up flying private flights, being driven around in cars with tinted windows, living in homes surrounded by fences, and travelling around with a retinue of bodyguards, because those are what they have to do to ensure a degree of the privacy that so many take for granted. Its not right that they should have to go to those lengths, but it is the cost of being a public figure. In closing, I respect Phil Brooks' right to privacy and commend him for trying to keep his issues to himself-but he is just not going to ever get those things to the degree he may want, and he should either accept that or start doing the things that will ensure he does get a greater degree of it. There is no real middle ground for him in this case, as unfair as that is. Becoming one of the elite, especially in wrestling pretty much the only way to properly indulge in such a passion. It's hard to pursue on a craft if you have to spend 40 hours a week to a "real job". It's not so much big money, so much as it is consistent money to pay bills and the like. If one could work in their chosen avenue of entertainment and make enough money to live comfortably without the need for a "real" job, even at the minimum wage level, they would.
|
|
|
Post by europeanuppercut on May 10, 2014 2:13:56 GMT -5
it's all a work
natalie is in on it, fuel to the fire of punk's return as heel
most elaborate work of all-time
THIS IS THE TRUTH
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on May 10, 2014 7:17:30 GMT -5
Wow, uh. You're making a lot of assumptions (one of which seems to clearly be that I was talking about you specifically), but the most interesting one is that distinction you keep coming back to. Yes, obviously, getting stalked is bad. But getting harassed in public is bad, too. If there is someone who makes it perfectly clear through body language that they want to be alone, and yet strangers keep coming up to that person and bothering them... then yes, that person is worthy of your sympathy. If someone has a hard time shopping in the supermarket because of this... yeah. That sucks. Sympathy. The fact that fans ALSO hang out in his alleyway does not strengthen your argument that it's perfectly acceptable for fans to bother him out in public. You're not doing the magical thinking here, but it doesn't make sense to act like Problem B isn't worth sympathy because we can all agree that Problem A is much worse. At best, that's a non sequitor. At worst, it's evidence for what I'M saying, because it's evidence that fans don't respect boundaries and can be crazy, so it SHOULD be worrisome for him to get approached anywhere. The thing I was commenting on was people's very weird tendency to just mention that he's rich, as if that has anything to do with anything. Yes, he's got good stuff going on for him; it does not follow that we therefore shouldn't care about the bad things that happen to him. You keep making another kind of point: That because he chose to be a wrestler, he shouldn't get sympathy about things that happen to him (below an arbitrary standard of acceptability which, it seems, you get to decide) that are in any way related to that choice. But there's two problems with that. First, choices don't happen in a vacuum. It is not reasonable to expect someone to make a decision because they think it has no downside. People make decisions because they think it's worth it compared to whatever other options are there. So it's not fair to say "oh, he should have expected it," because that's presuming he DIDN'T expect it. He could just as easily have known about it and known it was going to suck, but did it anyway because the other alternatives are worse, for whatever reason. The other is that he didn't choose to get bothered by people, because that's not an inherent thing about being a wrestler. If I become a sushi chef when I could just as easily have become something else, and then I say to you "My life sucks because I hate touching fish," then that's at the very least confusing, because you can't be a sushi chef, much less a good one, without touching fish. But getting hounded by fans, on your time off, is not necessary to succeeding as a wrestler; it just happens as a consequence. But you're acting like it's inherent. And then there's the third problem, astutely pointed out by others: It takes the responsibility off of the people who are actually being inappropriate. And dude, was the tone of this really necessary? "fantastical worldview?" Rude. Yeah, the tone of the post was a bit on the aggressive side, as I thought I was responding to a passive aggressive attack ('fascinating magical thinking' and 'just-worlding' comments), so I am sorry for that. I was being needlessly rude. I do get your point, and I'm not disagreeing with most of it in regards to how fans act. It is ridiculous that it's impossible for certain people to go in public without being asked for autographs, and again, much of that was never at issue. But I still do disagree with you saying that being bothered by people in public isn't a known side effect of the job. It's less like touching fish as a sushi chef and more like getting injured being an athlete. It's not part of the official job description, but it's a well-known consequence that when you do a job trying to get people to pay attention to you, that they're going to pay attention to you. You said that people want to pretend that it's this intrinsic downside, people don't have to pretend, they just have to open their eyes and look. People can argue all they want about how it shouldn't be that way or how it's not a famous person's responsibility that others get excited to see them in public, and they're right. I completely agree that, but you don't have to disagree that fans are unreasonable to believe that dealing with unreasonable fans is still a well-known downside of the job. Believing it should be otherwise and saying so on a message board most people don't know exists doesn't make the negatives go away. This isn't saying that Punk owes these people anything, I've never thought that celebrities owe anything to their fans. It's also not saying that they're right for hounding him, because I don't believe they are. But if someone, whomever they are, is trying to become famous, then they're being a touch naive if they don't know that there's a downside to success. He's not the first, last, or worst example of it. It's not lacking basic human decency or compassion, it's just being realistic. There's a reality to being famous that sort of sucks, which was the entire point of the article that his friend wrote. You don't have to like it, but you really should keep that in mind if you want to pursue it. Yes, follow your dream, but be able to recognize that "you get everything you ever wanted" isn't the only thing that happens when you become famous. I don't really get any of the comments saying it's creepy. Like, really, people are becoming afraid or nervous that others are saying that having photos taken in public is a known downside of being famous? But, as gnr astutely said, this isn't Punk complaining. There are a lot of stories from before this of him being rude or aloof, but he hasn't actually come out and complained about fans, at least not publicly. That's something me and others jumped the gun on.
|
|
|
Post by ThereIsNoAbsurdistOnlyZuul on May 10, 2014 7:30:00 GMT -5
Wow, uh. You're making a lot of assumptions (one of which seems to clearly be that I was talking about you specifically), but the most interesting one is that distinction you keep coming back to. Yes, obviously, getting stalked is bad. But getting harassed in public is bad, too. If there is someone who makes it perfectly clear through body language that they want to be alone, and yet strangers keep coming up to that person and bothering them... then yes, that person is worthy of your sympathy. If someone has a hard time shopping in the supermarket because of this... yeah. That sucks. Sympathy. The fact that fans ALSO hang out in his alleyway does not strengthen your argument that it's perfectly acceptable for fans to bother him out in public. You're not doing the magical thinking here, but it doesn't make sense to act like Problem B isn't worth sympathy because we can all agree that Problem A is much worse. At best, that's a non sequitor. At worst, it's evidence for what I'M saying, because it's evidence that fans don't respect boundaries and can be crazy, so it SHOULD be worrisome for him to get approached anywhere. The thing I was commenting on was people's very weird tendency to just mention that he's rich, as if that has anything to do with anything. Yes, he's got good stuff going on for him; it does not follow that we therefore shouldn't care about the bad things that happen to him. You keep making another kind of point: That because he chose to be a wrestler, he shouldn't get sympathy about things that happen to him (below an arbitrary standard of acceptability which, it seems, you get to decide) that are in any way related to that choice. But there's two problems with that. First, choices don't happen in a vacuum. It is not reasonable to expect someone to make a decision because they think it has no downside. People make decisions because they think it's worth it compared to whatever other options are there. So it's not fair to say "oh, he should have expected it," because that's presuming he DIDN'T expect it. He could just as easily have known about it and known it was going to suck, but did it anyway because the other alternatives are worse, for whatever reason. The other is that he didn't choose to get bothered by people, because that's not an inherent thing about being a wrestler. If I become a sushi chef when I could just as easily have become something else, and then I say to you "My life sucks because I hate touching fish," then that's at the very least confusing, because you can't be a sushi chef, much less a good one, without touching fish. But getting hounded by fans, on your time off, is not necessary to succeeding as a wrestler; it just happens as a consequence. But you're acting like it's inherent. And then there's the third problem, astutely pointed out by others: It takes the responsibility off of the people who are actually being inappropriate. And dude, was the tone of this really necessary? "fantastical worldview?" Rude. Yeah, the tone of the post was a bit on the aggressive side, as I thought I was responding to a passive aggressive attack ('fascinating magical thinking' and 'just-worlding' comments), so I am sorry for that. I was being needlessly rude. I do get your point, and I'm not disagreeing with most of it in regards to how fans act. It is ridiculous that it's impossible for certain people to go in public without being asked for autographs, and again, much of that was never at issue. But I still do disagree with you saying that being bothered by people in public isn't a known side effect of the job. It's less like touching fish as a sushi chef and more like getting injured being an athlete. It's not part of the official job description, but it's a well-known consequence that when you do a job trying to get people to pay attention to you, that they're going to pay attention to you. You said that people want to pretend that it's this intrinsic downside, people don't have to pretend, they just have to open their eyes and look. People can argue all they want about how it shouldn't be that way or how it's not a famous person's responsibility that others get excited to see them in public, and they're right. I completely agree that, but you don't have to disagree that fans are unreasonable to believe that dealing with unreasonable fans is still a part of the job. Believing it should be otherwise doesn't make the negatives go away. This isn't saying that Punk owes these people anything, I've never thought that celebrities owe anything to their fans. It's also not saying that they're right for hounding him. But if someone, whomever they are, is trying to become famous, then they're being a touch naive if they don't know that there's a downside to success. It's not lacking basic human decency or compassion, it's having forethought. There's a reality to being famous that sort of sucks, which was the entire point of the article that his friend wrote. You don't have to like it, but you really should keep that in mind if you want to pursue it. Yes, follow your dream, but be able to recognize that there your dream does have effects other than "you get everything you ever wanted" I don't really get any of the comments saying it's creepy. Like, really, people are becoming afraid or nervous that others are saying that having photos taken in public is a known downside of being famous? But, as gnr astutely said, this isn't Punk complaining. There are a lot of stories from before this of him being rude or aloof, but he hasn't actually come out and complained about fans, at least not publicly. That's something me and others jumped the gun on. He has expressed displeasure in us using his real name, and acting entitled in demands to him outside of the ring. I think those are justified. That said, we don't know what he told his friend, and we don't know where he is at. Frankly, I'd rather he recuperate fully before doing anything, but then that is true for any of them. We don't need Angle to be 'Injury Status Gold Standard' after all.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on May 10, 2014 9:22:30 GMT -5
I don't follow the logic of "if you didn't want to be famous, you shouldn't have gotten into this field!" Let's take just some generic person who loves music and wants to perform songs for large groups of people. That is his dream in life. But let's say he's also introverted and shy, has a hard time dealing with people at times, and would be bothered if lots of people approached him in public. Should he really look at that potential problem and go "shit, better not pursue my dream"? No, that would be ridiculous. In life, people should try to be as happy as possible, right? People should try to pursue their dreams and career goals, right? Seeing as achieving that dream would make them happy, they should probably go and try to make it a reality. So maybe being at the top of WWE was Punk's dream. Forget that he's rich. Forgot that he's famous. Just think of him as a person looking to do well in a job he likes. Who are any of us to tell that person, or any person " hey, I know this is something you always wanted to do, but you should have given up on that dream because you didn't see this side effect!" No. Famous or otherwise, people should get into whatever job or work they want if it makes them happy. There's bad parts to every job. If people looked at jobs and didn't take them because of some auxiliary thing they didn't like, no one would ever take a job. I may be wrong, but I think you just described Jim Johnston, and he came up with a perfect compromise for himself. I don't know the guy personally, but given how long he's done this for, he probably is happy with how he approached it. I really don't see why there's such a backlash against the notion of thinking about a job before rushing headlong into it. The notion that people never do so or they'd never take a job is just ludicrous, people do it all the time. Taking Punk completely out of the equation for reasons stated, and just going with a hypothetical person, they absolutely should think about the downsides of whatever career they choose, because there's more than one career path that'll allow someone to do what they love that may not make them miserable for other reasons. It is about being happy, and not thinking about some aspect of a job that'd make you miserable is the exact opposite of it.
|
|
|
Post by Sparvid on May 10, 2014 10:11:05 GMT -5
I don't follow the logic of "if you didn't want to be famous, you shouldn't have gotten into this field!" Let's take just some generic person who loves music and wants to perform songs for large groups of people. That is his dream in life. But let's say he's also introverted and shy, has a hard time dealing with people at times, and would be bothered if lots of people approached him in public. Should he really look at that potential problem and go "shit, better not pursue my dream"? No, that would be ridiculous.
|
|
khali
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,673
|
Post by khali on May 10, 2014 10:14:38 GMT -5
I don't follow the logic of "if you didn't want to be famous, you shouldn't have gotten into this field!" Let's take just some generic person who loves music and wants to perform songs for large groups of people. That is his dream in life. But let's say he's also introverted and shy, has a hard time dealing with people at times, and would be bothered if lots of people approached him in public. Should he really look at that potential problem and go "shit, better not pursue my dream"? No, that would be ridiculous. In life, people should try to be as happy as possible, right? People should try to pursue their dreams and career goals, right? Seeing as achieving that dream would make them happy, they should probably go and try to make it a reality. So maybe being at the top of WWE was Punk's dream. Forget that he's rich. Forgot that he's famous. Just think of him as a person looking to do well in a job he likes. Who are any of us to tell that person, or any person " hey, I know this is something you always wanted to do, but you should have given up on that dream because you didn't see this side effect!" No. Famous or otherwise, people should get into whatever job or work they want if it makes them happy. There's bad parts to every job. If people looked at jobs and didn't take them because of some auxiliary thing they didn't like, no one would ever take a job. I may be wrong, but I think you just described Jim Johnston, and he came up with a perfect compromise for himself. I don't know the guy personally, but given how long he's done this for, he probably is happy with how he approached it. I really don't see why there's such a backlash against the notion of thinking about a job before rushing headlong into it. The notion that people never do so or they'd never take a job is just ludicrous, people do it all the time. Taking Punk completely out of the equation for reasons stated, and just going with a hypothetical person, they absolutely should think about the downsides of whatever career they choose, because there's more than one career path that'll allow someone to do what they love that may not make them miserable for other reasons. It is about being happy, and not thinking about some aspect of a job that'd make you miserable is the exact opposite of it. But isn't Johnston a super extreme example since, if I remember reading correctly, he couldn't even perform in front of people at all? I'll give you another example that fits Punk's situation more closely, and one that I think shows that a lot of the anger at Punk here is because some people don't like Punk. I'm a big fan of the band Rush and it is very well known that drummer/lyricist Neil Peart doesn't like being approached by fans. He wrote a song in which that's talked about. It's even talked about on the documentary about the band. Here's the YouTube clip where the band and the guy himself talk about it: I have been on a LOT or Rush message boards and heard plenty of their most hardcore fans talk. Him not liking meeting fans comes up a lot and a lot of people are super pissed that he takes this stance. These are people who are major fans of the band calling him all sorts of names for having this attitude. But not once have I ever seen a Rush fan say "he shouldn't have joined the band!" They don't say that because even if they think it's a lame attitude, they still love his work and want him to keep doing it. Him not wanting to be approached by them doesn't make them wish he never started in the band. Another example: In the Conan O'Brien Can't Stop documentary, there's some scenes where he puts on a good face for massive groups of fans or even family members of employees, but afterwards complains about being mobbed. If you look around online there's a lot of people who wrote all these "Conan O'Brien is a dick" type posts and openly talked about their disdain for that attitude, even though they find him funny. But again, not once did I ever see someone say "he shouldn't have gotten his own TV show then!" Again, most of the people writing this stuff like him, so they didn't say that either. Punk is the only example I've seen where there's a backlash that he shouldn't have gotten into the job if he didn't like that. What makes him unique here? I think in at least a few, maybe not all, if comes from people who don't like him in the first place.
|
|
RIHT
Hank Scorpio
Wanted a title with "YOU'RE WELCOME!" Close enough.
Hey-yo.
Posts: 5,897
|
Post by RIHT on May 10, 2014 10:18:34 GMT -5
I think maybe Batista said something about differentiating character and person, and this might be an example. Punk got famous for playing a bold, brave, and outspoken character. So when he does the opposite of that wanting a break from wrestling or whatever, then the effect is magnified. What if John Cena decided to leave WWE for a break like this? The reaction would be way worse. He's known as the guy that loves the fans, but if he tried to hide out for a few months, imagine the backlash. But look at a guy like Del Rio, who doesn't come off as someone that is in love with the fans, if he left, people probably wouldn't care. The comparisons are a bit rough, but you get the idea.
|
|
|
Post by Thunderbolt on May 10, 2014 10:25:38 GMT -5
From Punk's wiki:
"In professional wrestling, Punk is a seven-time World Champion, having held the ROH World Championship and ECW Championship once each, WWE's World Heavyweight Championship three times, and the WWE Championship twice." So I guess he could be considered a 7 time world champ.
|
|
TGM
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,073
|
Post by TGM on May 10, 2014 11:12:24 GMT -5
Regardless of his job, the man is entitled to privacy, as should all men be.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on May 10, 2014 11:50:47 GMT -5
I may be wrong, but I think you just described Jim Johnston, and he came up with a perfect compromise for himself. I don't know the guy personally, but given how long he's done this for, he probably is happy with how he approached it. I really don't see why there's such a backlash against the notion of thinking about a job before rushing headlong into it. The notion that people never do so or they'd never take a job is just ludicrous, people do it all the time. Taking Punk completely out of the equation for reasons stated, and just going with a hypothetical person, they absolutely should think about the downsides of whatever career they choose, because there's more than one career path that'll allow someone to do what they love that may not make them miserable for other reasons. It is about being happy, and not thinking about some aspect of a job that'd make you miserable is the exact opposite of it. But isn't Johnston a super extreme example since, if I remember reading correctly, he couldn't even perform in front of people at all? I'll give you another example that fits Punk's situation more closely, and one that I think shows that a lot of the anger at Punk here is because some people don't like Punk. I'm a big fan of the band Rush and it is very well known that drummer/lyricist Neil Peart doesn't like being approached by fans. He wrote a song in which that's talked about. It's even talked about on the documentary about the band. Here's the YouTube clip where the band and the guy himself talk about it: I have been on a LOT or Rush message boards and heard plenty of their most hardcore fans talk. Him not liking meeting fans comes up a lot and a lot of people are super pissed that he takes this stance. These are people who are major fans of the band calling him all sorts of names for having this attitude. But not once have I ever seen a Rush fan say "he shouldn't have joined the band!" They don't say that because even if they think it's a lame attitude, they still love his work and want him to keep doing it. Him not wanting to be approached by them doesn't make them wish he never started in the band. Another example: In the Conan O'Brien Can't Stop documentary, there's some scenes where he puts on a good face for massive groups of fans or even family members of employees, but afterwards complains about being mobbed. If you look around online there's a lot of people who wrote all these "Conan O'Brien is a dick" type posts and openly talked about their disdain for that attitude, even though they find him funny. But again, not once did I ever see someone say "he shouldn't have gotten his own TV show then!" Again, most of the people writing this stuff like him, so they didn't say that either. Punk is the only example I've seen where there's a backlash that he shouldn't have gotten into the job if he didn't like that. What makes him unique here? I think in at least a few, maybe not all, if comes from people who don't like him in the first place. I'd say Johnston is a great example. There's an easily foreseeable downside to a job that he knows he would hate, so he figured out how to do what he loved and avoid it. Again, taking any specific individual out of it, that's how a lot of people choose careers, they figure out how to do something that they'd like that avoids certain things that they know will make them miserable. Why is considering the negative aspects of a job considered this extremely creepy or illogical thing? Again, Punk hasn't really complained himself, so it's impossible to say what he did or didn't do, and obviously those crazy fans are in the wrong. There's no debate on those points. But taking him out of it, I just don't get why people are so vehemently against this notion that you should consider the downside of a career before going for it, as though YOLO is a good way to plan your future. It's not blaming any celebrity for wanting his private time or for the bad behaviors of fans, it's just saying that if in general you don't want to be noticed in public then you might want to consider that huge downside of celebrity where you lose your anonymity when you're pursuing your dream. That's the trade off of celebrity. But at this point, we're extremely off topic, so I'll let you have your response if you want and just leave it at that. On topic, the crazy as f*** fans need to get over it and let the guy have his peace.
|
|
|
Post by molson5 on May 10, 2014 11:55:15 GMT -5
So you're only allowed to take a job that you like 100% of the things about? Maybe Punk doesn't like how fame impacts his private life, but he loved the money, and the chance to wrestle for a living enough to make up for it. All of you criticizing Punk here I suppose have perfect jobs that don't entail anything at all you don't like.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on May 10, 2014 11:59:53 GMT -5
So you're only allowed to take a job that you like 100% of the things about? Maybe Punk doesn't like how fame impacts his private life, but he loved the money, and the chance to wrestle for a living enough to make up for it. All of you criticizing Punk here I suppose have perfect jobs that don't entail anything at all you don't like. Because "think about if a job has aspects that will make you miserable before pursuing it" is totally the same thing as "you are only ever allowed to have a job that has absolutely nothing at all that you dislike!" You can disagree without bastardizing what everyone else is saying.
|
|
|
Post by molson5 on May 10, 2014 12:07:34 GMT -5
So you're only allowed to take a job that you like 100% of the things about? Maybe Punk doesn't like how fame impacts his private life, but he loved the money, and the chance to wrestle for a living enough to make up for it. All of you criticizing Punk here I suppose have perfect jobs that don't entail anything at all you don't like. Because "think about if a job has aspects that will make you miserable before pursuing it" is totally the same thing as "you are only ever allowed to have a job that has absolutely nothing at all that you dislike!" You can disagree without bastardizing what everyone else is saying. Who says he's "miserable"? It looks like he's having a great life to me. You're criticizing him for (apparently) talking to a friend about something he didn't like about his job. Have you never done that? Did you like 100% of every job you've ever had? What's your job currently, that's so perfect?
|
|
|
Post by molson5 on May 10, 2014 12:21:09 GMT -5
Those of you who are angry at CM Punk for not liking an aspect of his jobs - how do you manage to be wrestling fans, when you obviously dislike MANY, if not most aspects of being a pro wresting fan? A lot of this board is just people bitching about everything, from what happens on a wrestling show, to in this case, bitching about what wrestlers talk to their friends about. If you think people shouldn't partake in something unless they enjoy 100% of the aspects of it, maybe you could do us a favor and stop watching wrestling and stop posting here? (It's worth a shot).
This thread is unbelievable. And I really don't like CM Punk. I find him hugely overrated and boring. I think what it comes down to is jealousy. When people are jealous of someone else's life, they can get offended if that other person has the NERVE to express something like this, even if it's to a friend!
So Punk isn't allowed to express any negative emotions or frustration, even to his own friends, but the people criticizing him are free to continue to whine and complain about this and everything else. Because Punk has more than them, so he shouldn't complain. Well, there are people in the world who have less than any poster here. So, by your logic, you shouldn't complain either.
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on May 10, 2014 12:47:56 GMT -5
He has expressed displeasure in us using his real name, and acting entitled in demands to him outside of the ring. I think those are justified. That said, we don't know what he told his friend, and we don't know where he is at. Frankly, I'd rather he recuperate fully before doing anything, but then that is true for any of them. We don't need Angle to be 'Injury Status Gold Standard' after all. Your signature is really of perfect application to some of the replies in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by molson5 on May 10, 2014 12:56:37 GMT -5
Let's make a lit of things i'm pretty sure CM Punk liked about being a pro wrestler. Feel free to debate any of these.
-The money and security that has him set for life, to where he never has to work again. At 35 years old! -Banging the divas -The fame, at least in the context of him being at work. He liked being the champion, he liked main-eventing PPVs, he liked being in big matches in front of big crowds -The fame, in terms of some the off-work perks - like sitting cageside at UFC, and probably being able to get the special service at hotels and restaurants (the money helps with this too). -he liked wrestling and performing -he liked the comradery with the wrestlers.
Here's the list of things he probably didn't like about the job
-Weirdo fans invading his privacy -Getting stopped by people in public -the injures -the lack of sleep from being on the road. -creative differences with the WWE
I'm thinking the pros outweigh the cons. I'm pretty sure he doesn't regret deciding not to become a janitor (We could make a different pro/con list for that job). Yes, one of you has literally posted that Punk should have become a janitor because of those cons. While completely ignoring the pros. Many seem to agree. Even with all of those pros, some of you are criticizing Punk for both becoming a wrestler, and for expressing frustration with some of those cons with a friend. Again, I guess those people have perfect jobs with no cons at all, to be able to speak from a position of moral superiority that nobody should ever express dislike about any part of their job, even if their friends. Must be nice.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on May 10, 2014 13:12:08 GMT -5
Because "think about if a job has aspects that will make you miserable before pursuing it" is totally the same thing as "you are only ever allowed to have a job that has absolutely nothing at all that you dislike!" You can disagree without bastardizing what everyone else is saying. Who says he's "miserable"? It looks like he's having a great life to me. You're criticizing him for (apparently) talking to a friend about something he didn't like about his job. Have you never done that? Did you like 100% of every job you've ever had? What's your job currently, that's so perfect? Right. 1: I've already agreed that, even though asshole CM Punk stories seem to be fairly abundant whenever he's out in public, that as long as Punk isn't the one complaining, you can't say much about his particular stance. If you're going to attack another user for something they said, at least read what they really said instead of making it up. 2: I never said a job has to be perfect, so why you're so insistent on that being the point is outright baffling. The lengths people will go to to intentionally miss the point in this thread are ludicrous.
|
|
|
Post by molson5 on May 10, 2014 13:32:19 GMT -5
Who says he's "miserable"? It looks like he's having a great life to me. You're criticizing him for (apparently) talking to a friend about something he didn't like about his job. Have you never done that? Did you like 100% of every job you've ever had? What's your job currently, that's so perfect? 2: I never said a job has to be perfect, so why you're so insistent on that being the point is outright baffling. People are criticizing Punk for expressing frustration with a downside of his job with a friend. Others have said he should not have become a wrestler if he didn't like this one thing about being a wrestler. So yes, the necessary implication of that is that someone either has to like everything about their job, or at least never express anything negative, even to friends. I made that point without replying to anyone. You're the one who jumped in, arguing the point, I'm just responding.
|
|
|
Post by ThereIsNoAbsurdistOnlyZuul on May 10, 2014 14:08:09 GMT -5
He has expressed displeasure in us using his real name, and acting entitled in demands to him outside of the ring. I think those are justified. That said, we don't know what he told his friend, and we don't know where he is at. Frankly, I'd rather he recuperate fully before doing anything, but then that is true for any of them. We don't need Angle to be 'Injury Status Gold Standard' after all. Your signature is really of perfect application to some of the replies in this thread. I cannot change the views of others, that has to be a decision on their part. So in the discourse here the only thing I can do is point out the perceived flaws in the logic of the stances that are taken. In the instance of Punk I readily admit my bias and such.
|
|