|
Post by This Player Hating Mothman on Oct 8, 2021 20:38:08 GMT -5
You know what this man's gimmick is. Come on now, you knew it'd be controversial lol. Well, true. But this thread probably has more views than NXT did. Thread's got a better demo number, too.
|
|
EZ: Brainy Bae
King Koopa
I be like SHEESH
Posts: 12,644
Member is Online
|
Post by EZ: Brainy Bae on Oct 8, 2021 22:18:58 GMT -5
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? It should not be a challenge to book someone with good beliefs as a face, so I don't know what the challenge would be. I'd probably dress him up better, have him talk about how the squared circle is a safe space where we can all come together and wrestle sports-entertainment it out regardless of our differences and that with the fresh start NXT 2.0 is giving that we should be doing away with the old and in with the new. No post-match beatdowns, title rematches, and bringing in new varied faces (preferably before they debuted 900 people). More or less advocating for a 'code of honor' in all intents and purposes but mixing in giving some underutilized talent more title opportunities and trying to keep the hierarchies from being too rigid. It would be incredibly simple to have jobbers/lower-tier wrestles thanking him and giving props for opportunities he would help advocate for. Wade would piss and moan about how these goobers are getting shots without earning it the old-school way, but the second he's confronted he just shuts up and says he was joking. Here's the thing for me: If they booked him as a face then I feel half the convo would be people going "he's too lame/goody-goody, of course they'd use a lame face to mock SJW's considering who's in charge" and it'd be the same convo but in reverse. Yeah, typically people speaking from moral positions are cast as the heels. What that expresses isn't that wrestling reveres the status quo and casts everyone who wants to change anything in any way like it's South Park, but that characters who have any sort of design or intent or agenda for wrestling are almost universally cast as the heel in an unfavorable parody of groups that the booker dislikes. Do you think the same type of argument applied for the wrestler referenced in your username before WWE? ie What made CM Punk a heel to a bunch of people wasn't the presentation of his beliefs, but rather that there was something fundamentally wrong with being straight-edge? I specifically use this example because Punk's character obviously did believe these good things, and was still a heel for saying and acting on them. Of course some people in the crowd would boo him for these beliefs; he must be a nerd or hates other people having a good time. But the vast majority booed him for being a tiresome asshole about them. If someone like Punk can establish that proof of concept then what matters is wether it's being executed well or not. It's not in Gacy's case, but I don't see anything insidious in them trying. As someone who's actually been watching the show there's more evidence that Gacy is insincere than sincere because a) his bad promos make no sense, as opposed to bad promos by Mandy and everyone else where their point is all too clear and repeated forty times b) Beth, the face commentator and thus voice of what the audience is supposed to think, thinks he's full of it and C) a bald, borderline-skinhead looking wrestler showed up after his match to stare at him knowingly. This could be either an ally of his who could wreck others on his behalf while he feigns innocence, or someone who knows him and will be disappointed in his new direction ... which would then make him face? I hope it's the latter for hilarity. But let's say it is a purposeful and Pritchard/Vince created the gimmick solely to laugh about those damn millennials. So what? Why give them the satisfaction of caring? If it’s “damn, with this gimmick WWE is really showing their ass on some seedy elements” we’re talking about a company that takes literal blood money from an evil regime known for butchering a journalist and the former most powerful person in the world having taken donations from their chairman and being involved in one of their highest profile angles ever. A not-ready wrestler on a C-level show that'll probably be repackaged in three months into Boris Doris being forced to say latinx next week is, I'm sorry, just straight up funny compared to that stuff. If it's "this will cause bad outlets to write bad articles” then I don’t see what that matters because by sheer virtue of their minority view those outlets will latch onto anything that might give them the hint of a nod even if it’s lame, incoherent or so far down the totem pole it's even below Scot Baio. You don’t worry about how people with bad faith will interpret something; by doing so they've already been validated. If it's "this will cause trolls to be more active or fan bad parts of wrestling fandom" there's no actual evidence of it as an issue. Looking through the top Youtube comments of Gacy vs Jiro …. they’re talking about being reminded of Bray Wyatt and Waylon Mercy, complimenting Jiro on his skills and persona, being intrigued about if Gacy will still wrestle as physically as he did in the match going forward or joking about how he looks like a knock-off Owens. I had to scroll down 5-6 pages worth before getting to someone who even mentioned the SJW aspect. This isn’t some character catching fire here. We're not getting more new posters talking about how great this character is. There's been no live reports of fans having to be removed or getting into fights for getting into arguments about how this character is or is not speaking truth. There's no reports of it upsetting or bothering people in the locker-room (and if there were I would support them doing away with the gimmick for the talent's sake). A huge part of AEW's rise is precisely in how (relatively) inclusive they've been. Whatever segments of wrestling fandom are receptive to anti-SJW sentiments are shrinking and because of it will occasionally shriek loud enough to be noticed. But that's what's happening. What does matter to me is that future bookers have the freedom and willingness to try booking ideas about cultural issues and not writing off something that could be good out of fear of merely breaching the topics lest the climate write it off as off-limits. That's why I'm writing one of of my longest posts about Joe f'n Gacy.
|
|
|
Post by This Player Hating Mothman on Oct 8, 2021 22:56:02 GMT -5
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? It should not be a challenge to book someone with good beliefs as a face, so I don't know what the challenge would be. I'd probably dress him up better, have him talk about how the squared circle is a safe space where we can all come together and wrestle sports-entertainment it out regardless of our differences and that with the fresh start NXT 2.0 is giving that we should be doing away with the old and in with the new. No post-match beatdowns, title rematches, and bringing in new varied faces (preferably before they debuted 900 people). More or less advocating for a 'code of honor' in all intents and purposes but mixing in giving some underutilized talent more title opportunities and trying to keep the hierarchies from being too rigid. It would be incredibly simple to have jobbers/lower-tier wrestles thanking him and giving props for opportunities he would help advocate for. Wade would piss and moan about how these goobers are getting shots without earning it the old-school way, but the second he's confronted he just shuts up and says he was joking. Here's the thing for me: If they booked him as a face then I feel half the convo would be people going "he's too lame/goody-goody, of course they'd use a lame face to mock SJW's considering who's in charge" and it'd be the same convo but in reverse. Yeah, typically people speaking from moral positions are cast as the heels. What that expresses isn't that wrestling reveres the status quo and casts everyone who wants to change anything in any way like it's South Park, but that characters who have any sort of design or intent or agenda for wrestling are almost universally cast as the heel in an unfavorable parody of groups that the booker dislikes. Do you think the same type of argument applied for the wrestler referenced in your username before WWE? ie What made CM Punk a heel to a bunch of people wasn't the presentation of his beliefs, but rather that there was something fundamentally wrong with being straight-edge? I specifically use this example because Punk's character obviously did believe these good things, and was still a heel for saying and acting on them. Of course some people in the crowd would boo him for these beliefs; he must be a nerd or hates other people having a good time. But the vast majority booed him for being a tiresome asshole about them. If someone like Punk can establish that proof of concept then what matters is wether it's being executed well or not. It's not in Gacy's case, but I don't see anything insidious in them trying. As someone who's actually been watching the show there's more evidence that Gacy is insincere than sincere because a) his bad promos make no sense, as opposed to bad promos by Mandy and everyone else where their point is all too clear and repeated forty times b) Beth, the face commentator and thus voice of what the audience is supposed to think, thinks he's full of it and C) a bald, borderline-skinhead looking wrestler showed up after his match to stare at him knowingly. This could be either an ally of his who could wreck others on his behalf while he feigns innocence, or someone who knows him and will be disappointed in his new direction ... which would then make him face? I hope it's the latter for hilarity. But let's say it is a purposeful and Pritchard/Vince created the gimmick solely to laugh about those damn millennials. So what? Why give them the satisfaction of caring? If it’s “damn, with this gimmick WWE is really showing their ass on some seedy elements” we’re talking about a company that takes literal blood money from an evil regime known for butchering a journalist and the former most powerful person in the world having taken donations from their chairman and being involved in one of their highest profile angles ever. A not-ready wrestler on a C-level show that'll probably be repackaged in three months into Boris Doris being forced to say latinx next week is, I'm sorry, just straight up funny compared to that stuff. If it's "this will cause bad outlets to write bad articles” then I don’t see what that matters because by sheer virtue of their minority view those outlets will latch onto anything that might give them the hint of a nod even if it’s lame, incoherent or so far down the totem pole it's even below Scot Baio. You don’t worry about how people with bad faith will interpret something; by doing so they've already been validated. If it's "this will cause trolls to be more active or fan bad parts of wrestling fandom" there's no actual evidence of it as an issue. Looking through the top Youtube comments of Gacy vs Jiro …. they’re talking about being reminded of Bray Wyatt and Waylon Mercy, complimenting Jiro on his skills and persona, being intrigued about if Gacy will still wrestle as physically as he did in the match going forward or joking about how he looks like a knock-off Owens. I had to scroll down 5-6 pages worth before getting to someone who even mentioned the SJW aspect. This isn’t some character catching fire here. We're not getting more new posters talking about how great this character is. There's been no live reports of fans having to be removed or getting into fights for getting into arguments about how this character is or is not speaking truth. There's no reports of it upsetting or bothering people in the locker-room (and if there were I would support them doing away with the gimmick for the talent's sake). A huge part of AEW's rise is precisely in how (relatively) inclusive they've been. Whatever segments of wrestling fandom are receptive to anti-SJW sentiments are shrinking and because of it will occasionally shriek loud enough to be noticed. But that's what's happening. What does matter to me is that future bookers have the freedom and willingness to try booking ideas about cultural issues and not writing off something that could be good out of fear of merely breaching the topics lest the climate write it off as off-limits. That's why I'm writing one of of my longest posts about Joe f'n Gacy. The thing with Punk, and this is the single hugest differentiating factor, is CM Punk ran the straight edge heel gimmick of his own accord by himself while being vehemently and openly straight edge. Which gave him a massive amount of advantage in crafting something that could play at the worst aspects of his own community and even his own personality. This ties into some of the things Carp and I both have brought up earlier in the thread; when the satire is coming from a place of deeper familiarity, there is an ability to do it in a way that presents something that avoids demonizing the ideology behind it. And this also comes with the heavy disclaimer that even liking both guys involved, I found the Punk vs. Jeff Hardy feud utterly perplexing and uncomfortable on a lot of levels and don't think any of it should have happened. Most of Punk's work stood as one of the rare examples against my point, but he did so with a creation outside of WWE's system rather than under a booker, and even still he had some missteps that I think absolutely should not have gone down. As far as the so what? Well, I dunno, it's a forum. I'm discussing shit. But as to the points of outlets and trolls, sure yeah maybe there aren't influxes of posters here (on this board where we aren't supposed to go into politics) and riots off in the stands, but like. Yeah, this is actively invigorating the trolls, and I'd drop some tweets in here but they'd be cropped to hell for language. Because yeah, some troll sectors are being emboldened here, maybe you aren't seeing them flooding the comments in droves but I see them in other spaces. When the character is getting an article on Fox News, a mainstream of mainstream news sources, yeah, I think that's notable, and I think it's worth questioning. Maybe because I'm approaching it as a creative, but if my work ended up feeding people who I disagreed with and getting them all "Yeah you go, make fun of them, they suck!" it'd give me pause. Funny enough, I'm speaking from experience there, I've written things that have absolutely been taken in the worst way by some people and back like ten years ago actually really got hit hard by a realization of that, so I've got a personal experience and stake in that topic. Like, I know WWE is dirty. I know WWE is dirtier on a scale way past this. But you know what? Honest to god? Talking about a man being assassinated and dismembered and then WWE heading right over for dinner is f***ing misery, and everything I'm doing here is first year media studies shit with joeiscool, who I believe has no ill will or horrible backing agenda behind their words. Simple fact is, this is the kind of shit I can talk about for days and doesn't get so ugly and bring up such nasty reality that I need to step away and center myself like spending my time mired in the muck of real human cruelty demands. It's a dude on a TV show and I will talk to death dudes on TV shows and their merits simply because I enjoy doing so. Some people see shit on a screen as not worth talking about, I think talking about shit on a screen is a great way to spend my time. That's 99% of it. As serious as this conversation has gotten in some ways, it's still only a step further than a high school book assignment in exploring intention and meaning.
|
|
|
Post by carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) on Oct 8, 2021 23:18:18 GMT -5
Maybe it's because I do some social justice work, but I've found people respond better to stories with faces attached to them. There's a thin line between complaining and making a difference. So saying something will almost always be met with more opposition than fighting for someone else. It's why the civil rights movement would bring busses of people to desegregate states. You can tell states they need to integrate and it's another to see dogs attack people for trying to sit at the same lunch table. We all might not understand buzzwords but we understand humanity OK... I mean, I gotta be honest, I'm even more confused about where you stand, now, because all your replies are kinda tangential to what I'm saying. I don't think we were talking about the most effective way to do social justice advocacy, right? We were talking about the conditions under which you'd consider this sort of character a face, given that you think he's a heel because 1. He's self-serving, 2. He talks about politics at times "when no one wants to hear it" and 3. He has a communal orientation (you've explained this is because of your way of looking at sports, which I have to reiterate I don't think is commonly shared). I guess, if it'd help, my focus is on the point 2, there, and my concern is that for you (and perhaps others?) any time there isn't a blatant evil racist going around racisting, it's a time "when no one wants to hear it." So outside of that specific context, this character is necessarily a bad guy. Which means the social justice aspects of his character per se are what makes him a heel. Which was my original point, and... I thought was what you were arguing against. What are you basing this on? I... kind of can't imagine anyone reacting that way
|
|
EZ: Brainy Bae
King Koopa
I be like SHEESH
Posts: 12,644
Member is Online
|
Post by EZ: Brainy Bae on Oct 8, 2021 23:39:15 GMT -5
It should not be a challenge to book someone with good beliefs as a face, so I don't know what the challenge would be. I'd probably dress him up better, have him talk about how the squared circle is a safe space where we can all come together and wrestle sports-entertainment it out regardless of our differences and that with the fresh start NXT 2.0 is giving that we should be doing away with the old and in with the new. No post-match beatdowns, title rematches, and bringing in new varied faces (preferably before they debuted 900 people). More or less advocating for a 'code of honor' in all intents and purposes but mixing in giving some underutilized talent more title opportunities and trying to keep the hierarchies from being too rigid. It would be incredibly simple to have jobbers/lower-tier wrestles thanking him and giving props for opportunities he would help advocate for. Wade would piss and moan about how these goobers are getting shots without earning it the old-school way, but the second he's confronted he just shuts up and says he was joking. Here's the thing for me: If they booked him as a face then I feel half the convo would be people going "he's too lame/goody-goody, of course they'd use a lame face to mock SJW's considering who's in charge" and it'd be the same convo but in reverse. Do you think the same type of argument applied for the wrestler referenced in your username before WWE? ie What made CM Punk a heel to a bunch of people wasn't the presentation of his beliefs, but rather that there was something fundamentally wrong with being straight-edge? I specifically use this example because Punk's character obviously did believe these good things, and was still a heel for saying and acting on them. Of course some people in the crowd would boo him for these beliefs; he must be a nerd or hates other people having a good time. But the vast majority booed him for being a tiresome asshole about them. If someone like Punk can establish that proof of concept then what matters is wether it's being executed well or not. It's not in Gacy's case, but I don't see anything insidious in them trying. As someone who's actually been watching the show there's more evidence that Gacy is insincere than sincere because a) his bad promos make no sense, as opposed to bad promos by Mandy and everyone else where their point is all too clear and repeated forty times b) Beth, the face commentator and thus voice of what the audience is supposed to think, thinks he's full of it and C) a bald, borderline-skinhead looking wrestler showed up after his match to stare at him knowingly. This could be either an ally of his who could wreck others on his behalf while he feigns innocence, or someone who knows him and will be disappointed in his new direction ... which would then make him face? I hope it's the latter for hilarity. But let's say it is a purposeful and Pritchard/Vince created the gimmick solely to laugh about those damn millennials. So what? Why give them the satisfaction of caring? If it’s “damn, with this gimmick WWE is really showing their ass on some seedy elements” we’re talking about a company that takes literal blood money from an evil regime known for butchering a journalist and the former most powerful person in the world having taken donations from their chairman and being involved in one of their highest profile angles ever. A not-ready wrestler on a C-level show that'll probably be repackaged in three months into Boris Doris being forced to say latinx next week is, I'm sorry, just straight up funny compared to that stuff. If it's "this will cause bad outlets to write bad articles” then I don’t see what that matters because by sheer virtue of their minority view those outlets will latch onto anything that might give them the hint of a nod even if it’s lame, incoherent or so far down the totem pole it's even below Scot Baio. You don’t worry about how people with bad faith will interpret something; by doing so they've already been validated. If it's "this will cause trolls to be more active or fan bad parts of wrestling fandom" there's no actual evidence of it as an issue. Looking through the top Youtube comments of Gacy vs Jiro …. they’re talking about being reminded of Bray Wyatt and Waylon Mercy, complimenting Jiro on his skills and persona, being intrigued about if Gacy will still wrestle as physically as he did in the match going forward or joking about how he looks like a knock-off Owens. I had to scroll down 5-6 pages worth before getting to someone who even mentioned the SJW aspect. This isn’t some character catching fire here. We're not getting more new posters talking about how great this character is. There's been no live reports of fans having to be removed or getting into fights for getting into arguments about how this character is or is not speaking truth. There's no reports of it upsetting or bothering people in the locker-room (and if there were I would support them doing away with the gimmick for the talent's sake). A huge part of AEW's rise is precisely in how (relatively) inclusive they've been. Whatever segments of wrestling fandom are receptive to anti-SJW sentiments are shrinking and because of it will occasionally shriek loud enough to be noticed. But that's what's happening. What does matter to me is that future bookers have the freedom and willingness to try booking ideas about cultural issues and not writing off something that could be good out of fear of merely breaching the topics lest the climate write it off as off-limits. That's why I'm writing one of of my longest posts about Joe f'n Gacy. The thing with Punk, and this is the single hugest differentiating factor, is CM Punk ran the straight edge heel gimmick of his own accord by himself while being vehemently and openly straight edge. Which gave him a massive amount of advantage in crafting something that could play at the worst aspects of his own community and even his own personality. This ties into some of the things Carp and I both have brought up earlier in the thread; when the satire is coming from a place of deeper familiarity, there is an ability to do it in a way that presents something that avoids demonizing the ideology behind it. And this also comes with the heavy disclaimer that even liking both guys involved, I found the Punk vs. Jeff Hardy feud utterly perplexing and uncomfortable on a lot of levels and don't think any of it should have happened. Most of Punk's work stood as one of the rare examples against my point, but he did so with a creation outside of WWE's system rather than under a booker, and even still he had some missteps that I think absolutely should not have gone down. As far as the so what? Well, I dunno, it's a forum. I'm discussing shit. But as to the points of outlets and trolls, sure yeah maybe there aren't influxes of posters here (on this board where we aren't supposed to go into politics) and riots off in the stands, but like. Yeah, this is actively invigorating the trolls, and I'd drop some tweets in here but they'd be cropped to hell for language. Because yeah, some troll sectors are being emboldened here, maybe you aren't seeing them flooding the comments in droves but I see them in other spaces. When the character is getting an article on Fox News, a mainstream of mainstream news sources, yeah, I think that's notable, and I think it's worth questioning. Maybe because I'm approaching it as a creative, but if my work ended up feeding people who I disagreed with and getting them all "Yeah you go, make fun of them, they suck!" it'd give me pause. Funny enough, I'm speaking from experience there, I've written things that have absolutely been taken in the worst way by some people and back like ten years ago actually really got hit hard by a realization of that, so I've got a personal experience and stake in that topic. Like, I know WWE is dirty. I know WWE is dirtier on a scale way past this. But you know what? Honest to god? Talking about a man being assassinated and dismembered and then WWE heading right over for dinner is f***ing misery, and everything I'm doing here is first year media studies shit with joeiscool, who I believe has no ill will or horrible backing agenda behind their words. Simple fact is, this is the kind of shit I can talk about for days and doesn't get so ugly and bring up such nasty reality that I need to step away and center myself like spending my time mired in the muck of real human cruelty demands. It's a dude on a TV show and I will talk to death dudes on TV shows and their merits simply because I enjoy doing so. Some people see shit on a screen as not worth talking about, I think talking about shit on a screen is a great way to spend my time. That's 99% of it. As serious as this conversation has gotten in some ways, it's still only a step further than a high school book assignment in exploring intention and meaning. Don't get me wrong I think we pretty much agree on 90% of stuff. Obviously I don't mean to say you can't post or talk as much as you want about it. I hardly ever feel the need to post anything larger than a paragraph and it took me a good half-hour plus to lay out my previous post, so I just naturally assume the bigger/more posts the more deeply or fervently that person is caring about x topic. I just disagree that this gimmick is demonizing, and about the limits of what's "acceptable" within stories. I loved the Punk/Hardy feud and part of it is because it was uncomfortable. I'm on twitter but admittedly don't follow wrestlers/wrestling accounts so perhaps there's some dynamic I'm missing. I haven't had FB since 2013 and have no intention of ever going back, so I don't doubt there are enclaves or groups where old-school fans reminisce about what wrestling used to be/should be that may speak favorably of this character. I just wouldn't go as far as to it's harmful until more stuff actually happens in real life. Part of what may get me too is that I'm still bitter about how good the Muhammad Hassan angle was before they decided to make him go jihad and I do at some point want to see wrestling willing to take awkward risks like that again. Because as badly as the crowd and the faces in that feud have aged, it's still magical to watch and one of the rare cases where they accidentally stumbled onto far better than they could have planned.
|
|
EZ: Brainy Bae
King Koopa
I be like SHEESH
Posts: 12,644
Member is Online
|
Post by EZ: Brainy Bae on Oct 9, 2021 0:37:57 GMT -5
What are you basing this on? I... kind of can't imagine anyone reacting that way Based on how WWE book almost all their faces; dumb, ineffective or constant chokers. Supposing they, the current bookers of the show, booked him as a face I wouldn't see him doing much of anything and because of the gimmick I could easily imagine a good amount of posters going "well, this guy is clearly dead in the water. Figures" just from having been on here for more than half my life. Not saying people would be livid, but that the fact he'd be a mishandled like most talents would have that extra dimension of his gimmick not lining up with what most of the figureheads think. They would not book him the way I outlined, in other words, because they generally don't do things that make sense.
|
|
ISO Mid Thigh Pull
Dalek
MAMMA MIA! CRUISERLICIOUS!
LOOK AT THIS
Posts: 57,337
Member is Online
|
Post by ISO Mid Thigh Pull on Oct 9, 2021 1:01:19 GMT -5
What are you basing this on? I... kind of can't imagine anyone reacting that way Based on how WWE book almost all their faces; dumb, ineffective or constant chokers. Supposing they, the current bookers of the show, booked him as a face I wouldn't see him doing much of anything and because of the gimmick I could easily imagine a good amount of posters going "well, this guy is clearly dead in the water. Figures" just from having been on here for more than half my life. Not saying people would be livid, but that the fact he'd be a mishandled like most talents would have that extra dimension of his gimmick not lining up with what most of the figureheads think. They would not book him the way I outlined, in other words, because they generally don't do things that make sense. If this dude was a babyface talking about how the ring is a safe space and he's here to solve all his problems with conflict resolution and nonviolence? Yeah I'd want him beat in to a f***ing crater I can't lie lol
|
|
|
Post by Starshine on Oct 9, 2021 1:39:49 GMT -5
So how about instead of this dumb gimmick Joe takes on all soy diet enthusiast character and starts going by Joe Gassy instead?
|
|
|
Post by joeiscool on Oct 9, 2021 8:35:38 GMT -5
Maybe it's because I do some social justice work, but I've found people respond better to stories with faces attached to them. There's a thin line between complaining and making a difference. So saying something will almost always be met with more opposition than fighting for someone else. It's why the civil rights movement would bring busses of people to desegregate states. You can tell states they need to integrate and it's another to see dogs attack people for trying to sit at the same lunch table. We all might not understand buzzwords but we understand humanity OK... I mean, I gotta be honest, I'm even more confused about where you stand, now, because all your replies are kinda tangential to what I'm saying. I don't think we were talking about the most effective way to do social justice advocacy, right? We were talking about the conditions under which you'd consider this sort of character a face, given that you think he's a heel because 1. He's self-serving, 2. He talks about politics at times "when no one wants to hear it" and 3. He has a communal orientation (you've explained this is because of your way of looking at sports, which I have to reiterate I don't think is commonly shared). I guess, if it'd help, my focus is on the point 2, there, and my concern is that for you (and perhaps others?) any time there isn't a blatant evil racist going around racisting, it's a time "when no one wants to hear it." So outside of that specific context, this character is necessarily a bad guy. Which means the social justice aspects of his character per se are what makes him a heel. Which was my original point, and... I thought was what you were arguing against. You initially asked how I would book him like a face. I mean technically WWE has booked faces people boo. However, I am just saying certain actions bring boos. Preaching to the audience has almost always been boo'd by wrestling fans. By him fighting for individuals, it would cause people to cheer him. It's def shared among a lot of athletes.
|
|
Chiral
Salacious Crumb
Posts: 73,700
|
Post by Chiral on Oct 12, 2021 19:20:58 GMT -5
Tonight's promo he talked about toxic masculinity and how he fights for his snowflakes in another promo that was a smattering of SJW parody words haphazardly shoved together...do Roadie and co. know who even says snowflakes lol like again this isn't even a *good* parody of what it's goofing on
Also he caressed the big bald man's face so watch Roadie go for "gay panic" too
|
|
|
Post by Lizuka #BLM on Oct 12, 2021 19:23:16 GMT -5
Tonight's promo he talked about toxic masculinity and how he fights for his snowflakes in another promo that was a smattering of SJW parody words haphazardly shoved together...do Roadie and co. know who even says snowflakes lol like again this isn't even a *good* parody of what it's goofing on Also he caressed the big bald man's face so watch Roadie go for "gay panic" too I legit can't remember the last time that I heard someone say the word "snowflakes" that wasn't either 1), whining about the concept of them, or 2), parodying the people whining about it. I'm not sure I ever have.
|
|
|
Post by Fade is a CodyCryBaby on Oct 12, 2021 19:24:56 GMT -5
The aim isn’t subtly at all. Gacy might as well be a walking middle finger belonging to the hand of Prichard, or Vince or whoever’s running it.
|
|
|
Post by Starshine on Oct 12, 2021 19:26:00 GMT -5
Wasn’t there a guy in Chikara called Snowflake? Maybe Joe’s sticking up for him?
|
|
|
Post by carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) on Oct 13, 2021 1:41:37 GMT -5
Wasn’t there a guy in Chikara called Snowflake? Maybe Joe’s sticking up for him? Yes, it was a smug rookie who got in over his head and caused two of his friends to be killed. This led to a mental breakdown where another personality emerged, which named itself Snowflake as a bitter commentary on the way older generations talked about millennials, and because he was very sensitive and in constant pain. See, it was ironic because he grew up in an orphanage which actually was a security corporation's secret child soldier training program, and he repressed all the memories of that. So Snowflake emerged, and he's weirdo whiny brooding millennial who's also a super-soldier monster beast. It was a truly amazing character, creepy and interesting and novel. Then Mike Quackenbush got angry at the wrestler and the entire thing was dropped suddenly and we never saw him again. Thanks for reading this summation of what it was like to be a Chikara fan. ...Anyway, this is just what I said pages and pages ago, when he was gloating about "triggering" people. This is kind of hilarious, actually: it's social justice as written by someone whose sole exposure to social justice is listening to angry rants about why social justice warriors are bad. It's like someone trying to do an impression of Adam Sandler, but their only source of information about him is reviews of his movies. "I'm lazy and not funny and my friends are obnoxious! My name is Adam Sandler! Here's me trying to be funny but I will fail!" (also in this analogy you have to see this person do this impression every week over and over)
|
|
|
Post by This Player Hating Mothman on Oct 13, 2021 2:04:29 GMT -5
Him 'fighting for his snowflakes' is one of those tells because nobody. Uses that word to refer to themselves? Like it's a dated term in the first place, but it's only ever used in a derogatory manner, which doesn't help this not come across like every worst expectation dropped in this thread so far.
|
|
|
Post by Lizuka #BLM on Oct 13, 2021 2:15:47 GMT -5
At this point I kind of want to intentionally lean into the idea that Gacy has absolutely no idea what he's talking about and repeats random buzzwords with zero understanding of them, so like he shows up at Raw next week protesting the King of the Ring tournament because he's a Jinder abolitionist.
|
|
|
Post by Oh Cry Me a Screwball on Oct 13, 2021 2:20:36 GMT -5
Honestly, I hope someone in either Impact or even Joey Ryan himself owns the trademark on "cancel culture" in wrestling, so it's the one absolute go to for this sort of thing that Gacy can't outright reference.
It would be the one good thing that would have come out of Joseph Ryan's continued existence.
|
|
|
Post by polarbearpete on Oct 13, 2021 9:02:27 GMT -5
Him 'fighting for his snowflakes' is one of those tells because nobody. Uses that word to refer to themselves? Like it's a dated term in the first place, but it's only ever used in a derogatory manner, which doesn't help this not come across like every worst expectation dropped in this thread so far. Doesn’t that make it even more obvious the character is being insincere?
|
|
Chiral
Salacious Crumb
Posts: 73,700
|
Post by Chiral on Oct 13, 2021 12:37:14 GMT -5
Him 'fighting for his snowflakes' is one of those tells because nobody. Uses that word to refer to themselves? Like it's a dated term in the first place, but it's only ever used in a derogatory manner, which doesn't help this not come across like every worst expectation dropped in this thread so far. Doesn’t that make it even more obvious the character is being insincere? After last night it's really really really really obvious they're not going for insincere.
|
|
|
Post by polarbearpete on Oct 13, 2021 13:16:54 GMT -5
Doesn’t that make it even more obvious the character is being insincere? After last night it's really really really really obvious they're not going for insincere. Interesting, I’ll have to check it out. If it goes that way, then the gimmick won’t last long.
|
|