|
Post by Hit Girl on Jul 25, 2014 14:08:26 GMT -5
The more I think about it, I think "Stand Up for WWE" is the most offensive, insulting thing they've ever done. Why exactly is it offensive? All it really was trying to paint the company in a positive light. I think people had the misconception that it was some kind of "Vote for Linda McMahon" political thing due to the timing when it really wasn't. It was politically motivated. Entirely related to Linda.
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Jul 25, 2014 14:11:18 GMT -5
Why exactly is it offensive? All it really was trying to paint the company in a positive light. I think people had the misconception that it was some kind of "Vote for Linda McMahon" political thing due to the timing when it really wasn't. It was politically motivated. Entirely related to Linda. It was related in the sense that Linda's political opponents took shots at WWE even though she had long stopped working for the company. WWE had every right to defend themselves against those kind of baseless attacks. But it had nothing to do with getting her elected.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2014 14:17:04 GMT -5
The more I think about it, I think "Stand Up for WWE" is the most offensive, insulting thing they've ever done. Why exactly is it offensive? All it really was trying to paint the company in a positive light. I think people had the misconception that it was some kind of "Vote for Linda McMahon" political thing due to the timing when it really wasn't. It wasn't a "vote for Linda" campaign, it 110% was a "help us shout down the people who mention all of the seedy things we do so Linda's run for office isn't harmed" campaign.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jul 25, 2014 14:17:25 GMT -5
It was politically motivated. Entirely related to Linda. It was related in the sense that Linda's political opponents took shots at WWE even though she had long stopped working for the company. WWE had every right to defend themselves against those kind of baseless attacks. But it had nothing to do with getting her elected. It had everything to do with it, and yes, they have every right to defend themselves, presuming the attacks were indeed baseless. However asking fans to do it was laughable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2014 14:20:23 GMT -5
However asking fans to do it was laughable. Yes, this was what bothered me. All political opinions out of it, I'm not going to work for your multi-million-dollar political campaign for free.
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Jul 25, 2014 14:24:34 GMT -5
So you know how scummy it is when celebrities or major online personalities ask their fanbases to attack people who have offended them or stated a view about them that wasn't even that harsh?
That was what Stand Up for WWE basically was.
The difference was that this was a multimillion dollar entertainment powerhouse asking the fans to do the job they have the means and know how to do: Defend themselves.
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Jul 25, 2014 14:25:30 GMT -5
So you know how scummy it is when celebrities or major online personalities ask their fanbases to attack people who have offended them or stated a view about them that wasn't even that harsh? That was what Stand Up for WWE basically was. The difference was that this was a multimillion dollar entertainment powerhouse asking the fans to do the job they have the means and know how to do: Defend themselves. So Stand Up for WWE was Team Breezy? I feel bad for defending it now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2014 14:27:35 GMT -5
So you know how scummy it is when celebrities or major online personalities ask their fanbases to attack people who have offended them or stated a view about them that wasn't even that harsh? That was what Stand Up for WWE basically was. The difference was that this was a multimillion dollar entertainment powerhouse asking the fans to do the job they have the means and know how to do: Defend themselves. So Stand Up for WWE was Team Breezy? I feel bad for defending it now. Team Breezy is the very best way to put it, really. Don't feel bad for defending it, that's all on WWE for being deceptive.
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Jul 25, 2014 15:28:33 GMT -5
So Stand Up for WWE was Team Breezy? I feel bad for defending it now. Team Breezy is the very best way to put it, really. Don't feel bad for defending it, that's all on WWE for being deceptive. Oh yeah, they were really deceptive about it. Vince doing that whole thing saying about how people are insulting pro wrestling fans and stuff was a bit of genius because there was no other angle they could have done it. If they just came out and said "We want you to defend us", barely anyone would have done it.
|
|
|
Post by DASH 243✅ on Jul 25, 2014 18:39:21 GMT -5
sandman caning the shit out of Eugene at ons 2
|
|
|
Post by PsychoGoatee on Jul 26, 2014 20:09:37 GMT -5
Random note, for some things I wonder if it's the performers making choices, rather than just being something "WWE has done" per se.
I disagree that Cryme Tyme is offensive personally, it's a well done satire and good comedy in my opinion. And I can only assume that JTG and Shad were very in on it if not having came up with the idea themselves, do we know they didn't? I can see how it could push some buttons, but I like to see them taking those risks, to me that aren't even that risky.
We have psychos like Kane tormenting people and stalking or whatever else, we can't have comedy criminal characters? WWE is larger than life, I'd hope if anything the characters here are even weirder than our world is in reality.
I do see where people could be coming from finding characters on an eccentric wealthy guy's show making fun of lower class social problems and whatnot, but it didn't come across as in poor taste to me at any point. Plus they were over, and lovable.
|
|
|
Post by champviadq on Jul 26, 2014 20:37:06 GMT -5
Didn't read any of the previous comments.
Katie Vick has to be number one.
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Jul 26, 2014 20:51:34 GMT -5
Why exactly is it offensive? All it really was trying to paint the company in a positive light. I think people had the misconception that it was some kind of "Vote for Linda McMahon" political thing due to the timing when it really wasn't. It wasn't a "vote for Linda" campaign, it 110% was a "help us shout down the people who mention all of the seedy things we do so Linda's run for office isn't harmed" campaign. I don't think either one is the most offensive myself, but: If you're going to say "Stand Up For WWE" is one of the most offensive things WWE has ever done for these reasons, then the first episode of Raw after John Cena's divorce was announced, where the WWE went into overdrive for a couple weeks of "Look how much good John Cena does!" has to also be mentioned, just for the same "Ignore the fact that John Cena isn't literally [Insert deity of choice] made flesh" that it had.
|
|
MolotovMocktail
Grimlock
Home of the 5-time, 5-time, 5-time, 5-time 5-time Super Bowl Champion 49ers-and Wrestlemania 31
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by MolotovMocktail on Jul 26, 2014 20:59:56 GMT -5
So you know how scummy it is when celebrities or major online personalities ask their fanbases to attack people who have offended them or stated a view about them that wasn't even that harsh? That was what Stand Up for WWE basically was. The difference was that this was a multimillion dollar entertainment powerhouse asking the fans to do the job they have the means and know how to do: Defend themselves. Linda's opponents were attacking her not for her positions on the issues, but for content of entertainment during the Attitude Era. It was no different than Phil Mushnick or the Parents' Television Council. I hated hearing it in 2000, and I hated hearing it in 2010. And given that both Linda's opponents at one point or another have bashed video games in the wake of Sandy Hook and other tragedies, I have no qualms about agreeing with Stand Up for WWE. For offensive content, on the Heat before Muhammad Hassan debuted, Todd Grisham mentioned this, and Ivory replied, "I won't be flying to the arena, if you know what I mean."
|
|
amaron
Samurai Cop
I yam what I yam.
Posts: 2,212
|
Post by amaron on Jul 26, 2014 21:19:58 GMT -5
Didn't read any of the previous comments. Katie Vick has to be number one. Not even in the top 5.
|
|
cherry coloured funk
ALF
discontinue the trout
I know that when I wear Ban-Lon, there does appear to be some jiggling...
Posts: 1,210
|
Post by cherry coloured funk on Jul 26, 2014 21:57:03 GMT -5
I don't have a specific source (lazy) but I am sure over the years I have heard that Melanie Pillman being interviewed the night after Brian's death was her idea, or at least a mutual decision because she wanted the air cleared before rumours, speculation, and urban legends began. At the time there was a LOT of talk that this was an angle, especially given the nature of Brian's character, so it makes sense.
I've never been personally offended by anything I have ever seen in wrestling, as it is all very tame compared to most other scripted television shows. That said, anything used to gain heat via the exploitation of true-life events (ie war, jingoism, scandal, death...) is pretty scummy, and shows a lack of good storytelling.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jul 26, 2014 22:22:41 GMT -5
Said it before, will repeat it: "The Walkout" angle.
Almost everything about that offended me; from "but we're GIRLS, Hunter!", to "I can carry a mop to a better match than any of you could have", to CM Punk putting on Triple H's jacket, to reasons that I can't get into without breaking rules concerning labor/management relations.
I didn't even intend to see any of it, since I don't watch Raw regularly enough, but I was at the gym two Mondays in a row at the same time and happened to see nearly the whole thing. Just lucky that way, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jul 26, 2014 23:49:07 GMT -5
The "we're girls" comment was just Beth (I think it was her) being disingenuous.
However the overall tone of that angle was clearly "management = holier than thou, unions = ungrateful bastards"
It was also absurd that attacks from non-entities like Miz and Truth were the determining factor in compelling the roster to claim it was unsafe for them to work, but that's another issue.
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Jul 27, 2014 1:48:48 GMT -5
So you know how scummy it is when celebrities or major online personalities ask their fanbases to attack people who have offended them or stated a view about them that wasn't even that harsh? That was what Stand Up for WWE basically was. The difference was that this was a multimillion dollar entertainment powerhouse asking the fans to do the job they have the means and know how to do: Defend themselves. Linda's opponents were attacking her not for her positions on the issues, but for content of entertainment during the Attitude Era. It was no different than Phil Mushnick or the Parents' Television Council. I hated hearing it in 2000, and I hated hearing it in 2010. And given that both Linda's opponents at one point or another have bashed video games in the wake of Sandy Hook and other tragedies, I have no qualms about agreeing with Stand Up for WWE. And? They have the resources and footage to make their own defence on it. Linda had enough money in her campaign fund to do her own responses and her own publicity about the entire thing. Also, this only affected one state in one country. It didn't affect any other state for what people thought of WWE, it didn't affect anyone else in the world what Connecticut politicians thought of the Attitude Era and it wasn't like they were taking any shots at wrestling fans for it so, again, why should I defend a multi million dollar entertainment giant from attacks? Is it dumb to hark on about the Attitude Era in 2010? Sure, but it's YOUR job as a campaign and as a company to do that, not mine.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2014 2:19:47 GMT -5
Most offensive thing they've done is let their internal bullying go on for decades.
|
|