|
Post by polarbearpete on Oct 8, 2021 9:53:55 GMT -5
I usually don't feed traffic up to WWE's official channel, but I had to see him for myself, pulled up a video from last week, and yeah I'm really not seeing the hard derangement insincerity either. Dude sounds like he's a WWE heel cutting a promo using those words, there's so little in the cadence that doesn't feel like a bog standard "you people" promo. What I did see are tons of comments from people who are absolutely living for WWE's pushback against the woke forces of pro wrestling, including one comment insisting his use of the word impact is to slag off the presumably SJW-driven Impact Wrestling. I'm really not seeing the insincerity here, I'm seeing a bad political cartoon bloviating around with a bunch of terms the writers don't understand, strung together with little clear direction. We're not seeing him say 95% of the right stuff and then have that weird moment where that breaks. These are just halting heel promos. That also still doesn't even solve the issue of like. Is the heelness being insincere with good things, or is it being insincere with these things? Because there's no cracks, there's no people he's pressing his bad intentions onto, there aren't even really any bad intentions with what he's saying being expressed. This gimmick is indistinguishable right now from a strawman of these beliefs, and it continues to play oddly well and come across as suspiciously genuine to people who have a reason to want to boo a character like this. We’re early in his character arc. Beth spelled it out on commentary: m.youtube.com/watch?v=FDn5llclKZY She said she appreciates the message but thinks he’s bs’ing and trolling. Wade on the other hand thinks he’s sincere. We’ll see how it develops but I’d imagine they’re going the insincere route.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Oct 8, 2021 10:24:12 GMT -5
I’m perplexed as to why anyone would want to cheer a character like this. Whether or not what he’s saying is “good” is aside the point. But I’ve run into too many douchebags online like Gacy who claim they’re for good causes and they’re the most unbearable motherf***ers.
This isn’t me saying the gimmick is good, but he can only be a heel with this attitude. What would there be to root for?
|
|
|
Post by joeiscool on Oct 8, 2021 11:14:03 GMT -5
After seeing him wrestle it's kinda interesting. For the longest, it seemed as if he was going to be a pushover in the ring. However, seems to be competent. I'm thinking the character development will happen when he loses or is close to losing. So far he's trying to prove he's a good guy with his promo's but I see some sort of epic blowup where he shows he's not the all caring guy he's pretending to be...
|
|
|
Post by joeiscool on Oct 8, 2021 12:05:17 GMT -5
You need to bring a sign that says "I am booing your insincerity! Not your message!" But he's NOT INSINCERE. I'm a little mystified by everyone saying "The key is, he's an insincere hypocrite," when he's been out there for weeks trying to be a heel and not doing anything hypocritical or insincere! Like, it's just very apparent that the SJWness is the heelness. He might ALSO turn out to be a hypocrite, but that is absolutely not the heel heat they've been going for so far. Also, ugh, PC Principal is many steps up from Joe Gacy, but when that's everyone's go-to for a nuanced satirical take on these issues, it's showing how truly hard this is to do. Honestly, the only good comedic take-downs I've seen have been from people who are clearly sympathetic to social justice themselves, because they know enough about it to make a point that has any depth to it or has enough detail to ring at all true or feels current. Like, Bojack Horseman has some great stuff there, skewering certain perspectives brutally, and it works because it's specific and lived-in. He's probably going to be a hypocrite, but the obvious hellish stuff is the fact he's talking about a safe space in wrestling. It's not really the place for it. People paid to see conflict and issues being settled with violence. We saw someone get "burned alive" a few months ago, and this dude is talking about proving there are two winners. It's not that deep, and honestly, it doesn't have to be, it's wrestling.
|
|
|
Post by carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) on Oct 8, 2021 13:37:02 GMT -5
I’m perplexed as to why anyone would want to cheer a character like this. Whether or not what he’s saying is “good” is aside the point. But I’ve run into too many douchebags online like Gacy who claim they’re for good causes and they’re the most unbearable motherf***ers. This isn’t me saying the gimmick is good, but he can only be a heel with this attitude. What would there be to root for? I'm a little confused by what you're saying here, because in back to back sentences, you say you don't want to call his views good or bad, but then you say his causes are good. I'm not trying to nitpick a tiny little word choice; I'm just pointing out that there's a weird ambivalence to this which heightens the contentiousness. And if the problem is just that he reminds you of people you've interacted with who are unbearable douchebags, then you're blaming the wrong thing, right? These individuals had two things in common: 1. They claimed to be interested in social justice, and 2. They were unbearable douchebags. You've very clearly identified the reason why they were unpleasant to be around: 2. So condemning people who do 1 is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. And to address your central point, people might cheer for a character like this because they haven't had your specific experiences that have led to you associating these traits so strongly in the first place. Speaking personally, I've known a large number of very pleasant people wbo've talked about stuff like that. Yeah but like.... wrestling's fake and everyone knows it? Outside of kayfabe (and 100% of the audience watches from a position half-outside of kayfabe), this is all true. The ring absolutely should be a safe space. There are two winners, because "winning" is putting on a good wrestling match, and a good wrestling match is carried out by two people. Within kayfabe, very rarely holding a person's back to a wrestling mat for three seconds means you just proved he was in fact in the wrong when he stole your girlfriend. It's "settling problems with violence" but it's also ludicrous. Gacy's points do go against that, but it doesn't even happen much anymore, and the audience knows that enjoying watching this stage-combat play out is not the same as personally endorsing any toxic ideas, so where's the insult? And anyway, most of the time, wrestling matches are just doing a job and trying to win an athletic competition. It's not people solving their problems with violence.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Oct 8, 2021 14:06:00 GMT -5
I’m perplexed as to why anyone would want to cheer a character like this. Whether or not what he’s saying is “good” is aside the point. But I’ve run into too many douchebags online like Gacy who claim they’re for good causes and they’re the most unbearable motherf***ers. This isn’t me saying the gimmick is good, but he can only be a heel with this attitude. What would there be to root for? I'm a little confused by what you're saying here, because in back to back sentences, you say you don't want to call his views good or bad, but then you say his causes are good. I'm not trying to nitpick a tiny little word choice; I'm just pointing out that there's a weird ambivalence to this which heightens the contentiousness. And if the problem is just that he reminds you of people you've interacted with who are unbearable douchebags, then you're blaming the wrong thing, right? These individuals had two things in common: 1. They claimed to be interested in social justice, and 2. They were unbearable douchebags. You've very clearly identified the reason why they were unpleasant to be around: 2. So condemning people who do 1 is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. And to address your central point, people might cheer for a character like this because they haven't had your specific experiences that have led to you associating these traits so strongly in the first place. Speaking personally, I've known a large number of very pleasant people wbo've talked about stuff like that. Yeah, but then he’ll need dense and extra mean heels to fight, like I dunno, him getting on AJ for being flat-earth or those questionable TNA promos. Or unless Vince wants to be in storylines again and him and Joe just argue on TV. Experiences aside, I’d likely back that sort of socially conscious babyface if they had a Making A Difference fun aura like Fatu tried. Gacy would have to shift his act quite a bit for that to really get hot, I imagine.
|
|
|
Post by carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) on Oct 8, 2021 14:25:32 GMT -5
I'm a little confused by what you're saying here, because in back to back sentences, you say you don't want to call his views good or bad, but then you say his causes are good. I'm not trying to nitpick a tiny little word choice; I'm just pointing out that there's a weird ambivalence to this which heightens the contentiousness. And if the problem is just that he reminds you of people you've interacted with who are unbearable douchebags, then you're blaming the wrong thing, right? These individuals had two things in common: 1. They claimed to be interested in social justice, and 2. They were unbearable douchebags. You've very clearly identified the reason why they were unpleasant to be around: 2. So condemning people who do 1 is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. And to address your central point, people might cheer for a character like this because they haven't had your specific experiences that have led to you associating these traits so strongly in the first place. Speaking personally, I've known a large number of very pleasant people wbo've talked about stuff like that. Yeah, but then he’ll need dense and extra mean heels to fight, like I dunno, him getting on AJ for being flat-earth or those questionable TNA promos. Or unless Vince wants to be in storylines again and him and Joe just argue on TV. Experiences aside, I’d likely back that sort of socially conscious babyface if they had a Making A Difference fun aura like Fatu tried. Gacy would have to shift his act quite a bit for that to really get hot, I imagine. I'm... not super clear on how this relates to what I said, but in general, he wouldn't need villains, necessarily. There can be injustice without some bad person out there explicitly causing the injustice. And again, if you've had such bad experiences with a particular kind of person, fine, but my point is you wouldn't need to strip away all the social justice stuff and make him spout meaningless platitudes like Fatu in order to make any given person consider him to be a face.
|
|
hassanchop
Grimlock
Who are you to doubt Belldandy?
Posts: 14,794
|
Post by hassanchop on Oct 8, 2021 14:28:51 GMT -5
Yeah, but then he’ll need dense and extra mean heels to fight, like I dunno, him getting on AJ for being flat-earth or those questionable TNA promos. Or unless Vince wants to be in storylines again and him and Joe just argue on TV. Experiences aside, I’d likely back that sort of socially conscious babyface if they had a Making A Difference fun aura like Fatu tried. Gacy would have to shift his act quite a bit for that to really get hot, I imagine. I'm... not super clear on how this relates to what I said, but in general, he wouldn't need villains, necessarily. There can be injustice without some bad person out there explicitly causing the injustice. And again, if you've had such bad experiences with a particular kind of person, fine, but my point is you wouldn't need to strip away all the social justice stuff and make him spout meaningless platitudes like Fatu in order to make any given person consider him to be a face. This could be a villain:
|
|
|
Post by This Player Hating Mothman on Oct 8, 2021 14:29:31 GMT -5
But he's NOT INSINCERE. I'm a little mystified by everyone saying "The key is, he's an insincere hypocrite," when he's been out there for weeks trying to be a heel and not doing anything hypocritical or insincere! Like, it's just very apparent that the SJWness is the heelness. He might ALSO turn out to be a hypocrite, but that is absolutely not the heel heat they've been going for so far. Also, ugh, PC Principal is many steps up from Joe Gacy, but when that's everyone's go-to for a nuanced satirical take on these issues, it's showing how truly hard this is to do. Honestly, the only good comedic take-downs I've seen have been from people who are clearly sympathetic to social justice themselves, because they know enough about it to make a point that has any depth to it or has enough detail to ring at all true or feels current. Like, Bojack Horseman has some great stuff there, skewering certain perspectives brutally, and it works because it's specific and lived-in. He's probably going to be a hypocrite, but the obvious hellish stuff is the fact he's talking about a safe space in wrestling. It's not really the place for it. People paid to see conflict and issues being settled with violence. We saw someone get "burned alive" a few months ago, and this dude is talking about proving there are two winners. It's not that deep, and honestly, it doesn't have to be, it's wrestling. The problem with this idea of meta heeling is that it's wrapped up in a real ideology, though, and when you put on a meta heel gimmick, you're making statements. When Foley worked his anti-hardcore gimmick in ECW of putting on boring matches made of headlocks, even trying to 'save' Dreamer from suffering like he suffered and getting him to put on a comedy gimmick and valuing himself over the fans, there were very clear ideological claims being made about hardcore wrestling, about appeasing the fans, about other forms of wrestling entirely, that were cast negatively to give the ECW faithful something to rally around. The match style he worked, the goals he had; everything ran counter to what fans wanted to see, which casting him as a heel for those reasons and not for villainous actions or major character flaws, like other heels in ECW and wrestling broadly. What Foley didn't wasn't political in the most literal sense, but it was ideological and cast in the mid-late '90s counterculture boom. Him being the bad guy for everything he said was very clear. He wasn't just a wrestler trying to save people from the mistakes he made, he was the representation of mainstream wrestling, of comedy gimmicks, of 'respectable' programming. So if Gacy's the heel for wanting peaceful resolutions and talking about safe spaces, what are we supposed to take away from that? That wrestling is inherently violent? Because he's saying lots of other stuff too. How do we rationalize his talk of inclusivity? Is he merely wrong about peaceful resolutions and everything else is just fluff, or is the whole package representative of something the audience is supposed to reject? You say it's not that deep, but this is getting mainstream media attention for being a brutal takedown of woke culture. It's emboldening a lot of voices who do see this as deeper, and who think this means WWE is explicitly on their side. And there is a side here. Not just politically. There's conversations going on elsewhere about how 'woke' wrestling is getting and how they're 'taking over'. Increased pushes for women to be put on a major platform, talks of racial diversity, a way more prominent contingent of queer performers bringing elements into their characters instead of having cishet men play caricatures. You can find a lot of really basement level noxious stuff about AEW, and if you wanna dig deeper into criticisms of indie shows meant to celebrate diversity, prominently feature POC talent, celebrate queerness, or anything of the sort, you will find people who are absolutely virulent in their hatred. So even if this is supposed to be a bog standard pacifist heel gimmick all over again, it's just not. It has so many elements to it that are letting people make this ugly even if it's not supposed to be. That's the entire point of contention here. Maybe there's another shoe meant to drop. It'd better drop real fast, because the trappings of his gimmick cast this in a very unkind light. You never want satire to be confused with a sincere statement of the thing you're satirizing. That's what Gacy is being right now for a lot of people.
|
|
|
Post by polarbearpete on Oct 8, 2021 14:45:47 GMT -5
He's probably going to be a hypocrite, but the obvious hellish stuff is the fact he's talking about a safe space in wrestling. It's not really the place for it. People paid to see conflict and issues being settled with violence. We saw someone get "burned alive" a few months ago, and this dude is talking about proving there are two winners. It's not that deep, and honestly, it doesn't have to be, it's wrestling. The problem with this idea of meta heeling is that it's wrapped up in a real ideology, though, and when you put on a meta heel gimmick, you're making statements. When Foley worked his anti-hardcore gimmick in ECW of putting on boring matches made of headlocks, even trying to 'save' Dreamer from suffering like he suffered and getting him to put on a comedy gimmick and valuing himself over the fans, there were very clear ideological claims being made about hardcore wrestling, about appeasing the fans, about other forms of wrestling entirely, that were cast negatively to give the ECW faithful something to rally around. The match style he worked, the goals he had; everything ran counter to what fans wanted to see, which casting him as a heel for those reasons and not for villainous actions or major character flaws, like other heels in ECW and wrestling broadly. What Foley didn't wasn't political in the most literal sense, but it was ideological and cast in the mid-late '90s counterculture boom. Him being the bad guy for everything he said was very clear. He wasn't just a wrestler trying to save people from the mistakes he made, he was the representation of mainstream wrestling, of comedy gimmicks, of 'respectable' programming. So if Gacy's the heel for wanting peaceful resolutions and talking about safe spaces, what are we supposed to take away from that? That wrestling is inherently violent? Because he's saying lots of other stuff too. How do we rationalize his talk of inclusivity? Is he merely wrong about peaceful resolutions and everything else is just fluff, or is the whole package representative of something the audience is supposed to reject? You say it's not that deep, but this is getting mainstream media attention for being a brutal takedown of woke culture. It's emboldening a lot of voices who do see this as deeper, and who think this means WWE is explicitly on their side. And there is a side here. Not just politically. There's conversations going on elsewhere about how 'woke' wrestling is getting and how they're 'taking over'. Increased pushes for women to be put on a major platform, talks of racial diversity, a way more prominent contingent of queer performers bringing elements into their characters instead of having cishet men play caricatures. You can find a lot of really basement level noxious stuff about AEW, and if you wanna dig deeper into criticisms of indie shows meant to celebrate diversity, prominently feature POC talent, celebrate queerness, or anything of the sort, you will find people who are absolutely virulent in their hatred. So even if this is supposed to be a bog standard pacifist heel gimmick all over again, it's just not. It has so many elements to it that are letting people make this ugly even if it's not supposed to be. That's the entire point of contention here. Maybe there's another shoe meant to drop. It'd better drop real fast, because the trappings of his gimmick cast this in a very unkind light. You never want satire to be confused with a sincere statement of the thing you're satirizing. That's what Gacy is being right now for a lot of people. You’re basically saying that they can’t take the nuanced and slow approach here because of how certain segments of society are reacting to the character. I don’t think that’s really their concern though, is it? There’s always going to be an ugly underbelly of people saying nasty things in response to what’s presented.
|
|
|
Post by This Player Hating Mothman on Oct 8, 2021 14:57:59 GMT -5
The problem with this idea of meta heeling is that it's wrapped up in a real ideology, though, and when you put on a meta heel gimmick, you're making statements. When Foley worked his anti-hardcore gimmick in ECW of putting on boring matches made of headlocks, even trying to 'save' Dreamer from suffering like he suffered and getting him to put on a comedy gimmick and valuing himself over the fans, there were very clear ideological claims being made about hardcore wrestling, about appeasing the fans, about other forms of wrestling entirely, that were cast negatively to give the ECW faithful something to rally around. The match style he worked, the goals he had; everything ran counter to what fans wanted to see, which casting him as a heel for those reasons and not for villainous actions or major character flaws, like other heels in ECW and wrestling broadly. What Foley didn't wasn't political in the most literal sense, but it was ideological and cast in the mid-late '90s counterculture boom. Him being the bad guy for everything he said was very clear. He wasn't just a wrestler trying to save people from the mistakes he made, he was the representation of mainstream wrestling, of comedy gimmicks, of 'respectable' programming. So if Gacy's the heel for wanting peaceful resolutions and talking about safe spaces, what are we supposed to take away from that? That wrestling is inherently violent? Because he's saying lots of other stuff too. How do we rationalize his talk of inclusivity? Is he merely wrong about peaceful resolutions and everything else is just fluff, or is the whole package representative of something the audience is supposed to reject? You say it's not that deep, but this is getting mainstream media attention for being a brutal takedown of woke culture. It's emboldening a lot of voices who do see this as deeper, and who think this means WWE is explicitly on their side. And there is a side here. Not just politically. There's conversations going on elsewhere about how 'woke' wrestling is getting and how they're 'taking over'. Increased pushes for women to be put on a major platform, talks of racial diversity, a way more prominent contingent of queer performers bringing elements into their characters instead of having cishet men play caricatures. You can find a lot of really basement level noxious stuff about AEW, and if you wanna dig deeper into criticisms of indie shows meant to celebrate diversity, prominently feature POC talent, celebrate queerness, or anything of the sort, you will find people who are absolutely virulent in their hatred. So even if this is supposed to be a bog standard pacifist heel gimmick all over again, it's just not. It has so many elements to it that are letting people make this ugly even if it's not supposed to be. That's the entire point of contention here. Maybe there's another shoe meant to drop. It'd better drop real fast, because the trappings of his gimmick cast this in a very unkind light. You never want satire to be confused with a sincere statement of the thing you're satirizing. That's what Gacy is being right now for a lot of people. You’re basically saying that they can’t take the nuanced and slow approach here because of how certain segments of society are reacting to the character. I don’t think that’s really their concern though, is it? There’s always going to be an ugly underbelly of people saying nasty things in response to what’s presented. For one I also just don't believe there's going to be a nuanced approach, but also no, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that you can't pick and choose what elements of a character are the meta heel, and that if the heel action is the pacifist component, then the underpinning ideology that fuels that take is also in there with it. That the idea of "it's not that deep, it doesn't have to be, it's wrestling" doesn't apply when people buy in to the belief the gimmick is deep, by default. The second that Gacy's actions became a part of the discourse and people within and even without WWE began to use his character to say something, it became that deep, and discussion of that facet absolutely became something on the table. This character is saying something about these things and even if there is nuance and a direction we've yet to see reveal itself, it's that deep, and Carp (and anyone else in here) is justified in looking at it on that level. "It'd better drop real fast" was more of an aside than the thesis statement.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2021 15:00:44 GMT -5
The crowd should start chanting "Soyboy shit!" at him.
|
|
|
Post by carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) on Oct 8, 2021 15:11:19 GMT -5
You’re basically saying that they can’t take the nuanced and slow approach here because of how certain segments of society are reacting to the character. I don’t think that’s really their concern though, is it? There’s always going to be an ugly underbelly of people saying nasty things in response to what’s presented. I think it's partly that they can't take a nuanced and slow approach because the WWE's writers suck to the point that "wait and see" is a running joke. Also, you're contradicting yourself. This isn't a slow reveal of insincerity yet to come, because in your own defense of their writing, you pointed out Beth Phoenix, right now, saying we should boo him because he's insincere! that character beat has apparently already happened. Like, how is it really all that implausible the company Road Dogg writes for just wants to have a woke heel who's a heel because he's woke, but they also have realized "he's evil because he cares about inclusivity" sounds insane when you say it out loud, so they have to post-hoc up some other justification he's a bad guy?
|
|
|
Post by joeiscool on Oct 8, 2021 15:42:27 GMT -5
I’m perplexed as to why anyone would want to cheer a character like this. Whether or not what he’s saying is “good” is aside the point. But I’ve run into too many douchebags online like Gacy who claim they’re for good causes and they’re the most unbearable motherf***ers. This isn’t me saying the gimmick is good, but he can only be a heel with this attitude. What would there be to root for? I'm a little confused by what you're saying here, because in back to back sentences, you say you don't want to call his views good or bad, but then you say his causes are good. I'm not trying to nitpick a tiny little word choice; I'm just pointing out that there's a weird ambivalence to this which heightens the contentiousness. And if the problem is just that he reminds you of people you've interacted with who are unbearable douchebags, then you're blaming the wrong thing, right? These individuals had two things in common: 1. They claimed to be interested in social justice, and 2. They were unbearable douchebags. You've very clearly identified the reason why they were unpleasant to be around: 2. So condemning people who do 1 is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. And to address your central point, people might cheer for a character like this because they haven't had your specific experiences that have led to you associating these traits so strongly in the first place. Speaking personally, I've known a large number of very pleasant people wbo've talked about stuff like that. Yeah but like.... wrestling's fake and everyone knows it? Outside of kayfabe (and 100% of the audience watches from a position half-outside of kayfabe), this is all true. The ring absolutely should be a safe space. There are two winners, because "winning" is putting on a good wrestling match, and a good wrestling match is carried out by two people. Within kayfabe, very rarely holding a person's back to a wrestling mat for three seconds means you just proved he was in fact in the wrong when he stole your girlfriend. It's "settling problems with violence" but it's also ludicrous. Gacy's points do go against that, but it doesn't even happen much anymore, and the audience knows that enjoying watching this stage-combat play out is not the same as personally endorsing any toxic ideas, so where's the insult? And anyway, most of the time, wrestling matches are just doing a job and trying to win an athletic competition. It's not people solving their problems with violence. You're def overthinking it here. It's not about if he's right, it's about the fact he's interjecting his beliefs in a place where no one really wants/needs to hear them. Go back to the open challenge segment. All he needed to do is ask Ciampa to make it a threeway, but he decides to preach about privilege and how he should give opportunities to underprivileged people. The idea that he felt the need to preach that smacks of self-righteousness which is literally what heels are made of.
|
|
|
Post by joeiscool on Oct 8, 2021 16:10:29 GMT -5
He's probably going to be a hypocrite, but the obvious hellish stuff is the fact he's talking about a safe space in wrestling. It's not really the place for it. People paid to see conflict and issues being settled with violence. We saw someone get "burned alive" a few months ago, and this dude is talking about proving there are two winners. It's not that deep, and honestly, it doesn't have to be, it's wrestling. The problem with this idea of meta heeling is that it's wrapped up in a real ideology, though, and when you put on a meta heel gimmick, you're making statements. When Foley worked his anti-hardcore gimmick in ECW of putting on boring matches made of headlocks, even trying to 'save' Dreamer from suffering like he suffered and getting him to put on a comedy gimmick and valuing himself over the fans, there were very clear ideological claims being made about hardcore wrestling, about appeasing the fans, about other forms of wrestling entirely, that were cast negatively to give the ECW faithful something to rally around. The match style he worked, the goals he had; everything ran counter to what fans wanted to see, which casting him as a heel for those reasons and not for villainous actions or major character flaws, like other heels in ECW and wrestling broadly. What Foley didn't wasn't political in the most literal sense, but it was ideological and cast in the mid-late '90s counterculture boom. Him being the bad guy for everything he said was very clear. He wasn't just a wrestler trying to save people from the mistakes he made, he was the representation of mainstream wrestling, of comedy gimmicks, of 'respectable' programming. So if Gacy's the heel for wanting peaceful resolutions and talking about safe spaces, what are we supposed to take away from that? That wrestling is inherently violent? Because he's saying lots of other stuff too. How do we rationalize his talk of inclusivity? Is he merely wrong about peaceful resolutions and everything else is just fluff, or is the whole package representative of something the audience is supposed to reject? You say it's not that deep, but this is getting mainstream media attention for being a brutal takedown of woke culture. It's emboldening a lot of voices who do see this as deeper, and who think this means WWE is explicitly on their side. And there is a side here. Not just politically. There's conversations going on elsewhere about how 'woke' wrestling is getting and how they're 'taking over'. Increased pushes for women to be put on a major platform, talks of racial diversity, a way more prominent contingent of queer performers bringing elements into their characters instead of having cishet men play caricatures. You can find a lot of really basement level noxious stuff about AEW, and if you wanna dig deeper into criticisms of indie shows meant to celebrate diversity, prominently feature POC talent, celebrate queerness, or anything of the sort, you will find people who are absolutely virulent in their hatred. So even if this is supposed to be a bog standard pacifist heel gimmick all over again, it's just not. It has so many elements to it that are letting people make this ugly even if it's not supposed to be. That's the entire point of contention here. Maybe there's another shoe meant to drop. It'd better drop real fast, because the trappings of his gimmick cast this in a very unkind light. You never want satire to be confused with a sincere statement of the thing you're satirizing. That's what Gacy is being right now for a lot of people. Like I said before it's not about if he's right it's that he's interjecting it during a time no one wants to hear it. It's not a pacifist role, it's a self-righteous one. He's the enlightened one because he wants two winners and others just want to be number one. Even in his asking of a title shot he is using the rhetoric to benefit himself, but pretending it's for the greater good. I think the big reveal will probably be when he loses or is close to losing. He'll either blow up or cheat to prove he's not practicing what he preaches...
|
|
|
Post by This Player Hating Mothman on Oct 8, 2021 16:14:35 GMT -5
I'm a little confused by what you're saying here, because in back to back sentences, you say you don't want to call his views good or bad, but then you say his causes are good. I'm not trying to nitpick a tiny little word choice; I'm just pointing out that there's a weird ambivalence to this which heightens the contentiousness. And if the problem is just that he reminds you of people you've interacted with who are unbearable douchebags, then you're blaming the wrong thing, right? These individuals had two things in common: 1. They claimed to be interested in social justice, and 2. They were unbearable douchebags. You've very clearly identified the reason why they were unpleasant to be around: 2. So condemning people who do 1 is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. And to address your central point, people might cheer for a character like this because they haven't had your specific experiences that have led to you associating these traits so strongly in the first place. Speaking personally, I've known a large number of very pleasant people wbo've talked about stuff like that. Yeah but like.... wrestling's fake and everyone knows it? Outside of kayfabe (and 100% of the audience watches from a position half-outside of kayfabe), this is all true. The ring absolutely should be a safe space. There are two winners, because "winning" is putting on a good wrestling match, and a good wrestling match is carried out by two people. Within kayfabe, very rarely holding a person's back to a wrestling mat for three seconds means you just proved he was in fact in the wrong when he stole your girlfriend. It's "settling problems with violence" but it's also ludicrous. Gacy's points do go against that, but it doesn't even happen much anymore, and the audience knows that enjoying watching this stage-combat play out is not the same as personally endorsing any toxic ideas, so where's the insult? And anyway, most of the time, wrestling matches are just doing a job and trying to win an athletic competition. It's not people solving their problems with violence. You're def overthinking it here. It's not about if he's right, it's about the fact he's interjecting his beliefs in a place where no one really wants/needs to hear them. Go back to the open challenge segment. All he needed to do is ask Ciampa to make it a threeway, but he decides to preach about privilege and how he should give opportunities to underprivileged people. The idea that he felt the need to preach that smacks of self-righteousness which is literally what heels are made of. "Nobody wants to hear your beliefs, you're preachy and self-righteous" is literally a twitter comment someone would put under an article about the new Chapelle special. That's the point. That's been the whole point, and it's weird that the point has become the elephant in the room to so many people in this conversation. Every basic, general negative trait you can point to Gacy's character is something people who hate 'the wokes' do say. It's 1:1. "Joe Gacy is trying to stick his social justice stuff into wrestling where it doesn't belong" versus "woke academics are pushing critical race theory in our schools where it doesn't belong" versus "woke wrestling fans are forcing these talks about diversity and representation where they don't belong, just watch the show". This character is an unflattering stereotype of a person the people in charge don't like and so many attempts to reconcile why this character is actually a heel regardless of the beliefs just rings out as being how people criticize these views in real life. There's no difference, even if you don't mean it that way, and I'm not saying that you do, but that doesn't mean the design and the intent aren't there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2021 16:21:37 GMT -5
Eh...
The problem with this guy isn't that he's "bad" at his job. The problem is that the entire SJW/super leftist/"woke warrior" character is being portrayed as a heel and any trait that's similar can be seen as a heel trait. It's like a heel who cheats. Anytime someone cheats you're programmed to think that's a heel tactic. In this guy's case, they're portraying Gacy's character, mannerisms and antics as being "bad." He can OD on it or he can be subtle but they're still saying it's not what people should do. What makes it different from Bryan and his "Planet's Champion" character is that Bryan's character wasn't seen as bad until he went and did things such as changing the world title, insulting others and appearing to be better which was part of his natural character in general, he just made it about what he was into. Gacy on the other hand isn't like that, they're positioning everything he's doing as something the audience should be against.
It's not good.
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Oct 8, 2021 16:28:56 GMT -5
Eh... The problem with this guy isn't that he's "bad" at his job. The problem is that the entire SJW/super leftist/"woke warrior" character is being portrayed as a heel and any trait that's similar can be seen as a heel trait. It's like a heel who cheats. Anytime someone cheats you're programmed to think that's a heel tactic. In this guy's case, they're portraying Gacy's character, mannerisms and antics as being "bad." He can OD on it or he can be subtle but they're still saying it's not what people should do. What makes it different from Bryan and his "Planet's Champion" character is that Bryan's character wasn't seen as bad until he went and did things such as changing the world title, insulting others and appearing to be better which was part of his natural character in general, he just made it about what he was into. Gacy on the other hand isn't like that, they're positioning everything he's doing as something the audience should be against. It's not good. This is a nice condensation of the topic in one paragraph. As CM pointed out, even if you don't intend that character to be that way, there's too many other "parodies" in pop culture for people not to think it's that way. And even if the "Planet's Champion" thing was shaky in some parts, at the very least Bryan did things that were heelish that overrid his point, sort of like the justified heel who pushes it too far. Gacy is mostly buzzwords and terms. Buzzwords that the median 62-year-old audience has no real context for and, as a result, dislike and that seems to be it right now. Could that change? Sure. Will it? There's no reason for me think it would.
|
|
|
Post by carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) on Oct 8, 2021 16:34:01 GMT -5
Like I said before it's not about if he's right it's that he's interjecting it during a time no one wants to hear it. It's not a pacifist role, it's a self-righteous one. He's the enlightened one because he wants two winners and others just want to be number one. Even in his asking of a title shot he is using the rhetoric to benefit himself, but pretending it's for the greater good. I think the big reveal will probably be when he loses or is close to losing. He'll either blow up or cheat to prove he's not practicing what he preaches... OK, if the issue isn't his views but rather how he's going about things, then here's my challenge: book this character as a face. How would you, personally have someone who believes what he does and is vocal about it, but is a good guy?
|
|
|
Post by joeiscool on Oct 8, 2021 16:37:55 GMT -5
You're def overthinking it here. It's not about if he's right, it's about the fact he's interjecting his beliefs in a place where no one really wants/needs to hear them. Go back to the open challenge segment. All he needed to do is ask Ciampa to make it a threeway, but he decides to preach about privilege and how he should give opportunities to underprivileged people. The idea that he felt the need to preach that smacks of self-righteousness which is literally what heels are made of. "Nobody wants to hear your beliefs, you're preachy and self-righteous" is literally a twitter comment someone would put under an article about the new Chapelle special. That's the point. That's been the whole point, and it's weird that the point has become the elephant in the room to so many people in this conversation. Every basic, general negative trait you can point to Gacy's character is something people who hate 'the wokes' do say. It's 1:1. "Joe Gacy is trying to stick his social justice stuff into wrestling where it doesn't belong" versus "woke academics are pushing critical race theory in our schools where it doesn't belong" versus "woke wrestling fans are forcing these talks about diversity and representation where they don't belong, just watch the show". This character is an unflattering stereotype of a person the people in charge don't like and so many attempts to reconcile why this character is actually a heel regardless of the beliefs just rings out as being how people criticize these views in real life. There's no difference, even if you don't mean it that way, and I'm not saying that you do, but that doesn't mean the design and the intent aren't there. I think there's a wide degree of difference between teaching children history, and taking 5-10 mins of a wrestling show to preach your beliefs. In a less political degree, it's like Elias taking time to play guitar during a wrestling show. The idea is whotf does he think he is playing during a time where people are supposed to be fighting.
|
|