DDP Yoga Link

Friday, May 24, 2013

WWE v. Tornadoes

"Nice to see TNA offering good wishes to those hit by the tornado,
whereas WWE offers nothing."

Is WWE allowed to have a show since the tornadoes hit first before they get criticized? And no, I'm not counting the Wednesday show nobody watches.

The tornado story happened WELL before RAW was on the air, and probably before they even finished rewriting the script for the millionth time.  And no one’s asking for a big graphic like TNA does when something happens that day, but wilfully ignoring it like WWE does because it doesn’t match up with their corporate mandate of “making people smile” is bullshit. They could at least have had Michael Cole stop shilling the WWE app for 4 seconds to say “Best wishes to those in Boston” or “Hey, Jim Ross lives 10 miles from the tornado disaster, but he’s OK.”  But if it’s not a cause where they can produce 5 minute video packages about themselves and how fucking great they are for RISING ABOVE BREAST CANCER or RISING ABOVE BULLYING or whatever, then it doesn’t exist for them. 

You know who I want them to produce a video package about and sponsor?  DDP.  He is saving lives that were destroyed by the business in a very real way, and WWE should be pumping money into DDP Yoga instead of bankrolling losers like Tammy Sytch.  Hell, they should have sent Tammy to DDP instead of cutting her off! 

202 comments:

  1. Damn right on all accounts. I actually like DDP way more now than I ever did as a wrestler.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Christopher HirschMay 24, 2013 at 12:15 PM

    I think that they paid for rehab for people no longer employed by them was way above and beyond anything they needed to do.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Do you want your escapist fantasy to pay tribute to the British soldier that was hacked to death too?


    They have absolutely ZERO obligation to acknowledge that stuff. If they do, good for them. If they don't, big whoop.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hulk Hogan's BarberMay 24, 2013 at 12:19 PM

    *Slow Clap*

    ReplyDelete
  5. ...which backs up his point that unless there is something in it for them they don't care.

    ReplyDelete
  6. WWE should be pumping money into DDP Yoga instead of bankrolling losers like Tammy Sytch.


    I'm all for expanding DDP's resources if he wants to pursue this line of helping people. But can THIS COMPANY ever be trusted not to make a ham-handed attempt to turn it into "good TV"?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Seriously, what is his problem with this. Or is this one of his "clever" attempts at trolling?
    The tornadoes happened Monday afternoon. He expects WWE Raw to be his source of breaking news for everything that happens in the U.S. during the day? There are 10 other stations in the U.S. dedicated to breaking news. How many other entertainment based shows broke in that night to acknowledge it?
    Should Saturday Night Live be expecteted to comment, in a serious manner, on anything that happens during the day on Saturday just because they, too, are live? You're way off base on this one.

    ReplyDelete
  8. What dynamic_dave said.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Testify, my brotha!!"

    ReplyDelete
  10. It got you to post for the first time...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Knuckleberry PinnMay 24, 2013 at 12:27 PM

    Beauty rant here. Agree with all these points. If you've ever seen the "Never Give Up" vid where DDP helps a disabled veteran, you really ought to.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think Scott's more irked at the hypocrisy or the vulture-like tendencies of WWE when they'll bring out cancer kids for a twenty minute segment with John Cena, but they won't make a single "hope everybody's okay" comment.

    Either be a bleeding heart all of the time, or never mention the outside world.

    ReplyDelete
  13. True, except the paying for rehab stuff oddly coincided with them getting brutalized in the press for all the wrestlers dying young and Linda's first Senate run. So, yeah, absolutely nothing was it in for them; it was pure altruism.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Good point. Do we really want WWE's fingers in this thing while DDP's working on his two most difficult rehabs ever?

    ReplyDelete
  15. I can't agree with this strongly enough. They best everyone over the head with how awesome they are for supporting whatever their cause of the month is but they're oddly silent when they can't make a buck off a tragedy.

    DDP is the complete antithesis of the WWE. While I'm sure he's sold a few extra DVDs as a by-product of helping Jake and Scott Hall (Hell, I bought the DVDs and now swear by them), he was under no obligation to go to the great lengths he did to help them. It can't be easy for him to have recovering addicts move into his house and help them 24/7. I absolutely think the WWE should just use him as their rehab from now on instead of blowing money away on expensive rehab places for people who don't truly want help.

    ReplyDelete
  16. There are tragedies happening somewhere in the world every day that WWE (and a bunch of other TV shows) could acknowledge but choose not to. And if we're honest, the only reason the Oklahoma tornadoes -- or the Boston bombings or the Sandy Hook shootings -- seem more important to us is that (1) they happened in America, and (2) the American media makes a bigger deal out of them.

    Are those incidents more tragic than an earthquake in Turkey or a landslide in Indonesia? In the same week that 3 people died in the Boston Marathon bombing, 34 people died in an earthquake in Pakistan. WWE never mentioned it, the U.S. national news networks barely mentioned it, and nobody seemed to complain.
    While I do see the agenda at work when WWE talks about certain tragedies and ignores others, every TV show -- including the news -- has their hypocritical agendas in which they ignore tragic events all over the world because they don't "fit the brand."

    ReplyDelete
  17. It sure wouldn't be the first time they reacted slowly to a breaking news story. At least they didn't have a tribute show for the tornado.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Christopher HirschMay 24, 2013 at 12:57 PM

    Trying to make a Texas Tornado joke, but it's just not happening.

    ReplyDelete
  19. You don't have a foot to stand on.

    ReplyDelete
  20. So, because tragedies happen around the world, acknowledging the ones that happen here are part of a hypocritical agenda?
    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    ReplyDelete
  21. I just want WWE to act like the scripted TV show they claim to be. You say that "every TV show" has hypocritical agendas. Name me all of the scripted TV shows that have cancer kids appear with the protagonist or video packages patting themselves on the back about how they're against bullying. Oh yeah, you can't because they don't exist. Sure, shit happens all over the world, but it's their inconsistency that is laughable. I would be sooo happy if nothing was ever mentioned during their broadcast, ever. Keep the show within the "WWE universe" and then they could be absolved from criticism. There's always commercials, the stock holders meeting, the website, entertainment shows, etc. There are other platforms.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Christopher HirschMay 24, 2013 at 1:03 PM

    Don't remember saying that but the lemmings approve so well done.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Kerry shot himself in the heart and got blood and stuff everywhere, and all of his other brothers except 1 is dead, too.

    Hey, this game is fun!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Well said. WWE only gets involved when it benefits them instead of just doing the right thing. The entire opening montage of WrestleMania was devoted to Sandy cleanup and NJ Gov. Chris Christie (a republican -- like Linda McMahon -- who is considered a possible presidential candidate in 2016) six months after Sandy took place.



    We also often hear how they were the "first public assembly of its kind" after 9/11, when Stephanie compared fighting back against the attacks to her family fending off the federal government.



    And there was plenty of time to wish people there well and give an update on JR. My wife watches Dancing with the Stars (which is also a live Monday night show) and they did a quick thing on the tornadoes (as they also did on Boston).



    It's just the right thing to do, which WWE doesn't grasp the concept of. It doesn't hurt to just wish people well with a graphic on the bottom of the screen for the $10 text donation to the Red Cross.

    ReplyDelete
  25. If you're life is turned around from a WWE sponsored rehab, then you most certainly benefited from that and not just the WWE

    ReplyDelete
  26. Scott, I will have to disagree with you on your last point. I don't want WWE to invest any money into DDP's treatment program because via their revisionist history, they'll take sole credit for making Jake Roberts and Scott Hall healthy and active members of society while DDP will lose all rights to his program. Then, because Vince and company are such petty jackasses because they did not come up with the program themselves, they will release a "Self Destruction of DDP" video which will be advertised on Raw's "Did You Know" segment as the greatest selling sports entertainment redemption story DVD of all-time. All the while DDP will never see a dime from the WWE and will be relegated to making bitter YouTube shoot videos.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Sorry, but the purposes of the argument at hand, we have to act like WWE is a US-only company. Yes, they're "globally branded" blah blah blah, but they're American.


    So then, acting only within the US bubble, WWE a lot of times is aware of what's going on in the country only when it serves their purpose. For example, I don't think for one second Vince gives a shit about MLK day, even though he used to narrate the opening tribute.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Now you're getting off-track. Simply put, people from other countries don't care as much about tragedies in your country. It's more of, for lack of a better word, a fault or a lack of sympathy that just happens to be a trait of the human race when there's over seven billion of us.

    The proof of it is that Americans (as an example) tend not or would not show images of dead American soldiers, but would not have the same qualms with dead Vietnamese or Iraqis. One would be considered upsetting, the other not as much. That's humanity for you.



    Raw is an American entertainment show. Any tragedies mentioned would happen on their soil or to their soldiers overseas. This has nothing to do with "branding"; if you're going to mention them, only America-related incidents would be relevant, honestly.

    ReplyDelete
  29. A lot of people think that just b/c the bad things that happen in the US don't happen on the scale or with the frequency that they might in other parts of the world that the US doesn't have a right to feel affected when something bad does happen to us. Jingoism at its finest.

    ReplyDelete
  30. And from following Hall's Twitter, apparently it's quite a challenge. He and Jake don't get along at all, it seems.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Do you...know what jingoism means?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Can't tell if serious...

    ReplyDelete
  33. One definition is feeling that your country is superior to others, as when other countries look down their nose as the US for a myriad of reasons, such as thinking we have no right to feel affected when we experience tragedy.


    Now you go away, little one.

    ReplyDelete
  34. It's that game where you pull out the blocks and hope the tower doesn't fall.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Christopher HirschMay 24, 2013 at 1:16 PM

    I am, all he does is post food pics, mostly sushi, and retweets of his fans telling him they love him.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Oh great, he's a teenager now.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Guess I have one foot in the grave over that one.


    (Just like...)

    ReplyDelete
  38. Scott, you forget one very important thing: DDP achieved his success in WCW, and everything WCW produced was stupid and terrible, so WWE can never give it credit. Unless it's time to sell a DVD, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  39. kbwrestlingreviewsMay 24, 2013 at 1:24 PM

    My mom watches The Voice and said that it was mentioned on there. That show comes on at 8PM, the same as Raw.

    ReplyDelete
  40. It actually means extreme nationalism in the form of an aggressive foreign policy. Which has fuck all to do with the subject.



    But even by your objectively incorrect definition, what people are criticizing the US of is 'jingoism'. They're not saying that lost American lives are unimportant, but rather that 3 American lives are not more valuable than 34 Pakistani lives, and that that Americans would be better off for appreciating that. I love how you've managed to turn criticism of American 'jingoism' (copyright Lerxst), into their 'jingoism'.

    ReplyDelete
  41. This is bullshit posturing an an asinine statement. WWE has invested millions (if not tens of millions) of dollars in charitable giving under VKM's tenure and is the best partner Make a Wish has ever had. You're castigating them because they haven't (YET) reacted to Oklahoma? This is a LUDICROUS argument.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Christopher HirschMay 24, 2013 at 1:27 PM

    Your Mom, sure.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I don't think anyone over the age of 40 knows how to properly use social media.

    ReplyDelete
  44. It actually means extreme nationalism in the form of an aggressive foreign policy. Which has fuck all to do with the subject.

    Hey, I can use Wikipedia, too. Note the colloquial definition that follows the bit you pretty much lifted word for word.

    And saying that "we know how you should react to global tragedies" (or in your words: "Americans would be better off for appreciating that") isn't a form of thinking oneself superior; i.e. important? OK then.

    ReplyDelete
  45. kbwrestlingreviewsMay 24, 2013 at 1:31 PM

    I....uh.....Hey look over there!

    ReplyDelete
  46. Oh stop. The Marketing Manager at my business is almost 50 and she runs circles around anyone I know with that stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Are you suggesting that I looked up 'jingoism' on Wikipedia after reading your post, because I didn't know what it meant, recognized that it was incorrect, and then typed my response? Do you really believe that anyone gives that big a shit about you? As opposed to just recognizing that you used it incorrectly because I know what the fuck it means? What's it like inside that head of yours?

    And there are only so many ways to communicate the actual definition, so it's not surprising that they're similar.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Do you really believe that anyone gives that big a shit about you?


    Someone apparently does, b/c he created a Disqus account that I notified was following me that downvotes completely innocuous posts moments after I've posted them.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Now I'm confused. Are you accusing Gideon of stalking you? Are you accusing him of stalking you and downvoting you? You notified who, Disqus? What?!?!?

    ReplyDelete
  50. But by all means, regale us with 12 more individually posted thoughts on the subject.

    Oh please. I make my posts after I watch the shows, not during the live thread. The only difference is that they'd be spread over the live thread instead grouped together at the end.

    Get the fuck over yourself, dipshit. Or keep obsessing over my posts and my posting style, whatever gets you off.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Ha ha, my thoughts exactly.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Be careful. He has multiple accounts to down vote you with!!!

    ReplyDelete
  53. Ur getting trollzed

    ReplyDelete
  54. I phrased it oddly.

    Months ago I was notified via e-mail that some random person (who I've never heard of and who has no posts or activity whatsoever before or since) started following my Disqus account. Soon after, damn near every post I made started getting lone downvotes, even posts that were objective answers to questions.

    I didn't say it was Gideon. And Caps Locks Man himself has said that he pretty much downvotes anything I post. And whenever I've been reading over threads as they develop, the downvotes come almost right away, as if someone was notified of them.


    So like I said, apparently I matter enough to someone that he feels the need to track my every move.

    ReplyDelete
  55. I'm trying to stay neutral, so in his defense, you weren't exactly the nicest guy when calling him out on what he thought jingoism meant. It could've been handled better, but I'm confused about his Disqus paranoia. Furthermore, who the fuck cares about up and down votes anyways?

    ReplyDelete
  56. ok, but really, who cares about the votes. So not important.

    ReplyDelete
  57. I know, but it kinda makes this place not so fun when you feel like you've always got someone behind you trying to piss in your Wheaties. You've got your typical posters whose whole goal is stir shit up, but that's not my goal. So when I'm just posting stuff of interest to me, it's annoying and kind of a downer to get shit for no reason.

    ReplyDelete
  58. In my defense, I'm not obligated to be nice. When someone starts throwing around 'big' words like jingoism incorrectly so as to bolster their flimsy argument, it's a pet peeve of mine, and I responded accordingly. I don't think I was overtly aggressive or personal. I called bullshit in a tone commensurate with his ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Dude, "jingoism" can be used colloquially to mean "we're better than you." It doesn't have to entail explicit formal "aggressive foreign policy."



    If I didn't use it to the letter of the law, then fine, but I wasn't entirely out of line, either, using it. What I took issue with was your air of superiority (as exemplified by statements like "I called bullshit in a tone commensurate with his ignorance."). No, you're not obligated to be nice, but don't be surprised if people call you on when you act like a dick.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Oh, that's fine, I don't care (even as a MOD). I'm more concerned about direct insults for no reason type stuff and extremely obvious trolling, but whatever. Anywho, I was more replying to your comment that you said you were "disagreeing" with him. Not really, you basically said he was full of shit, which you're entitled to do. However, when you do that, you're probably going to get a more aggressive response as well than if you're nicer about it. Just my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Oh, and no, saying that every human life should be mourned equally,
    regardless of its nationality, is not 'jingoism'. And pointing out that
    Americans do not subscribe to this, and disproportionately care only
    about American lives is not 'jingoism'. It is the exact opposite. It's
    accusing Americans of 'jingoism'.


    But the problem is that saying Americans are the most guilty of doing this is not stating an objective fact, and hence, can be construed as looking down on Americans in the sense of "Stupid Americans, so selfish, if only you were more worldly like us, you would be better people and countrymen."

    ReplyDelete
  62. Personally I've never understood why anyone cares if an unrelated entity mentions any tragedy (whether local, national or global). It's just stupid PC bullshit to give people a reason to bitch. Seriously, why does anyone give a fuck?

    Let's say WWE *does* mention the tornado victims. Does anything change one bit? People who already thought poorly of the company are just going to assume it was half-hearted and insincere and probably wonder why there wasn't a graphic.

    I'd love if WWE would quit blowing themselves every time they do the slightest bit of good for anyone other than themselves, but I still don't think anyone should expect them to make any mention of an unrelated incident.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Exactly, who gives a shit? It makes no difference to anyone and is just another case of wrestling fans looking to bitch about something

    ReplyDelete
  64. It's not just wrestling fans, it's the entire country. People apparently love to be "offended" and "outraged". Sometimes it's warranted, but most of the time it isn't.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Scream09_HartKillerMay 24, 2013 at 2:14 PM

    DDP was friends with Jake and Hall, so it could be he's doing this to get people he cares about back on track and doesn't want every crack head in the wrestling business showing up on his doorstep.



    I agreed with everything else though.

    ReplyDelete
  66. I've been saying this for the past 2 years. It's beyond annoying.

    ReplyDelete
  67. FUCK YOU NARC!

    ReplyDelete
  68. Yeah dude, I KNOW FOR A FACT that your mom was otherwise occupied at the time!

    ReplyDelete
  69. I wasn't really making a blanket statement.

    ReplyDelete
  70. This is the same company that that gave an update on Jerry Lawler back in the fall not by showing a generic posed shot of Lawler as the teaser graphic, but of him laying on the stretcher with the oxygen mask over his face.


    Unless it can be used to pull at the heartstrings of the gullible, lowest common denominator, WWE won't do anything. We have to wait for them to send Layla and Sheamus and Otunga and the Bellas and Stephanie (of course) down to greet the victims, and get lots of video of it, before they mention it. Then they'll air the video on Raw, and make sure to show the crowd applauding afterward.

    ReplyDelete
  71. So the only charities that count are the ones they can promote? Hey man, you're making it way too easy.

    ReplyDelete
  72. I'm trying to figure out how this was your takeaway from my post.

    ReplyDelete
  73. I think the media should put way more emphasis on the 1,127 people that died in a Bangladesh factory to make sure we have 10 dollar t-shirts than 34 people that died in a bombing.


    Lets compare 34 and 1,127.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Yet they've kept it up after Linda's political career is over.

    ReplyDelete
  75. And while I'm happy things are going well; what happens to the rehabees when they're not living with DDP anymore? I'm not saying he shouldn't try, just that we shouldn't be funneling people to him quite yet.

    ReplyDelete
  76. I can't think of a high enough figure of money I'd be willing to bet that if WWE gave DDP money for his rehab the WWE would try to make a TV show for E! or the WWE Network out of it.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Worst_in_the_WorldMay 24, 2013 at 2:45 PM

    Well, I would, with all due respect, put myself in the camp who feels Scott's point is complete and utter bullshit misplaced outrage. Should a new episode of "The Big Bang Theory" have opened by inserting a graphic offering their condolences for the tornado victims? I know, WWE is live, but does that make it their duty? And as others have said, should they open the show every week by making note of the tragedy of the day? Because if you wanted, you could dig beyond the top stories and find something pretty horrific to acknowledge every Monday.

    And yeah, we get it, they hype their charity work to a ridiculous degree. But it doesn't discount the fact that they donated the money that they donated, or that their guys go out there and do a shitload of charity work. If their little video packages on Make a Wish make your blood boil so much then just fast forward through them. It's pretty easy! (And hey, you could do that for a lot of the stuff you don't like on a show. Really, why is anyone watching Raw live???)

    I guess my annoyance at this comment by SK is basically this: you're all like "They're not doing charity the right way! Yeah you donated money to a breast cancer charity, and your celebrities go out and visit sick kids, BUT YOU SHOULD DO IT DIFFERENTLY." And again, I like the site and a lot of SK's writing, but that just sounds like something that a parody of a whiny internet wrestling fan would say.

    Oh, and while I'm ranting, I'd wager that if they did mention he tornado (or Boston, or whatever tragedy you feel like they should mention in coming weeks) then the line in the Smarkrant would be something along the lines of "And now Cole does the Owen voice to talk about the tornado tragedy. Wonder if Stephanie comes out next to compare the tornado victims to when her daddy was put on trial." There's a lot to bitch about WWE for, but man, this one feels too much to me.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Just curious, but how many people have to die before it becomes a tragedy and thus demands national attention.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Because you called it "posturing" to be critical of the WWE for not at least mentioning the tornado even though they partner up with MAW and obviously care about charity. Well, THAT'S a ludicrous argument. Twenty-four people lost their lives and 200 more were injured. Before "Raw" ever came on the air we knew people had died.


    It's ridiculous to say that just because they demonstrate charity that it somehow absolves them from never mentioning a tornado that destroyed an entire city. It makes them look ridiculous and selfish when they only talk about events or tragedies that make a nice little video package to take up 10 minutes of "Raw."

    ReplyDelete
  80. A new episode of the Big Bang Theory should open with an apology for what it's about to show.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Worst_in_the_WorldMay 24, 2013 at 2:52 PM

    HAHAHA. Agreed. What's that main guy say? Bazoinga? So that's a joke? Oh jeez.

    ReplyDelete
  82. That's Chuck Lorre for you

    ReplyDelete
  83. Talk about an unfair criticism. WWE is under no obligation to do anything about every tragedy -- and when they do, more times than not people criticize them for patting themselves on the back or taking advantage of a tragic event. And if you're going to say "they didn't need to do something big, they could have done something," they did offer sympathies and donation information on their Twitter page. And there's info on WWE's website and corporate site as well. WWE has likely raised more and given more to charities and tragedies than any of us ever will. Let's not act like they were monsters for not taking a moment to interrupt their show to make mention of it.

    ReplyDelete
  84. And yet you still didn't stop taking pictures even when I asked you to leave.

    ReplyDelete
  85. 25 white people, and a dog(optional)

    ReplyDelete
  86. Yes, WWE having their biggest show of the year in the area most impacted by Sandy and in turn making reference to Sandy had everything to do with the fact that the governor is Republican. There's cynical, and then there's your post.

    ReplyDelete
  87. If there was a 20 car pile up in the home town of Cody Rhodes' college roommate, should they make reference to that too? Pak is absolutely right. You can't criticize them for promoting their charity and volunteer work and then criticize them for not mentioning a national tragedy. What obligation does WWE have to mention it?

    ReplyDelete
  88. Twenty-four people suddenly losing their lives and 200 more suddenly winding up in the hospital is not a "cause of the month."


    Again, I have never said once that WWE is obligated to mention the deaths that happened on Monday. I'm merely pointing out how they only care about these things when they can promote how awesome they are for caring about things.


    All you're doing is helping make my point for me while making something up about how I'm saying they are obligated to mention it.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Like I said above/below, charitable intentions are not an "all or nothing" affair. It's rather ludicrous to ask or expect anybody or any organization to either go all out with their charitable deeds or to never mention it at all.

    Even within the same industry, different companies have reacted in different ways. CBS pulled the season finale of Mike & Molly because it revolved around a tornado, and that airs during prime time. Meanwhile, that very night Adult Swim aired an episode of Family Guy that revolved around a tornado, and that airs at 11:00.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Thinking of how Vince McMahon treats and humiliates Jim Ross, maybe he was actually rooting for the tornadoes.

    ReplyDelete
  91. I think the dog thing is mandatory. Look at how everyone treated Michael Vick compared of NFLers who actually rape and murder PEOPLE!

    ReplyDelete
  92. I doubt DDP would turn his back on a broke-down wrestler he didn't ride with.


    "Fuck you, Marty Jannetty! You don't deserve my yoga skillz! Bang!"

    ReplyDelete
  93. "Again, the point is that WWE dedicates segments of their flagship program patting itself on the back for caring about critical causes. But when an EF5 tornado crushes Oklahoma they don't mention it?"



    This sentence right here most certainly insinuates that because WWE airs segments on their charitable work, they are expected/obligated to mention the tornado that went through Oklahoma.


    And I'm afraid I simply don't understand your point. You're saying that WWE only cares about issues if it means THEY can promote it....while also saying that they should have mentioned something about this? Because you seem to be taking a "they don't really care, they just want to improve their image" one second, and then a "they don't care because they won't even mention it" approach with the other.


    You're also very mistaken if you believe that WWE promotes every single charitable thing they do. There are loads of stories about WWE doing things for people impacted by some sort of tragedy and it going unmentioned/unpromoted. So that goes against your comment that they only care about things that they can exploit.

    ReplyDelete
  94. He's a jerk off troll. Why acknowledge anything he says

    ReplyDelete
  95. They're all scumbags anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  96. That's a pretty hilarious visual though,

    ReplyDelete
  97. Marty Scumetty!! Bang!

    ReplyDelete
  98. But that's a silly standard to hold somebody to. Even charitable organizations reject people who seek their assistance.

    ReplyDelete
  99. It probably would have been a good idea for the WWE to make some sort of mention of the Oklahoma tornadoes. However, whether they decided to make that mention or not is so inconsequential that I don't even understand why people are getting all that upset about it.

    ReplyDelete
  100. As much shit as I give WWE, and as easy as it would be to criticize them for this... I can't.


    Someone below put it right: Expecting WWE to be in the "news" business is a bit much. And that's what this would've been, to a LOT of people I bet. Just news.


    Now, Impact has the advantage over Smackdown of being a day earlier... but if WWE still does NOTHING before Smackdown tonight, then I'd be a lot more comfortable taking more shots at them.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Remember the days when we were both fans of that show? Man, what happened to that show?

    ReplyDelete
  102. That's how I look at. I mean, really, who cares? And besides, isn't watching wrestling supposed to be a bit of an escape from reality?

    ReplyDelete
  103. The fact that Vick did more time than Dante Stallworth is kind of fucked up.

    ReplyDelete
  104. And you still didn't leave even though I told you it was creepy that you were watching me have sex with her while yelling at parallax1978 for taking pictures.

    ReplyDelete
  105. If the governor of New Jersey wasn't a top member of the Republican party and you think they would've been front and center narrating a package and standing on stage at WrestleMania, you continue to think that.

    ReplyDelete
  106. I'm not expecting them to write a check for a million dollars two hours after something happens... but to just have Michael Cole say something like "hey, we want to take a moment to think of our friend Good ol JR and all our fans in Oklahoma who are suffering from the terrible tornadoes there today."

    I'm not criticizing what WWE does for charities... they just need to be aware of what's happening in the world to make it look like they don't have their collective heads in the sand. I love what John Cena and the other wrestlers do for Make a Wish and all the charities, and I loved that segment on TV a few weeks ago. The key with Cena is, as that man who posted about Cena visiting his ill son proved, he does his charity without a camera crew to document it. That's true charity.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Read it again. It is bullshit posturing to rip on a company (any company) for not mentioning a natural disaster YET. I find it ridiculous to be critical of company that has donated time and money to a swath of charitable efforts for one outlier failure; I'd also note that they still have time (and I'd expect) to resolve this "failure". There's a tendency on this site to jump ALL OVER WWE for perceived failings and I think (contrary to the creative decisions) the majority of those reactions are ill-founded.

    Additionally, the rationale behind WWE's charitable actions (Make a Wish, military visits, Sandy, Haiti, rehab for former workers) is mostly irrelevant - there was a post earlier that called the motive behind paying for the Hall/Sunny/etc. rehabs into question; who the f**k cares what those motives are? Charity is charity, whether it is predicated on guilt or karma.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Because tornadoes that wipe out entire towns and flatten elementary schools happen every day...

    ReplyDelete
  109. Writing a check for a million dollars two hours after something happens would be a better use of thier money than most things they do.

    ReplyDelete
  110. It's been repeated by others many times over here on this thread: there is no obligation on WWE's part to offer condolences or prayers or best wishes to victims of tragedies. Let the news outlets and celebrity tweets do that. I think Scott's outrage, and several others, might reflect a societal shift towards actually caring about said victims of tragedies. I mean, there has always been caring people in the world. But the 80's were called the "Me generation" for a reason, and the 90's were the era of the slacker and Generation X. But it seems to me that more and more people are trending toward "this dude lost his dog, so let's help him find it". Personally, i don't know anyone who was victimized by the Boston bombings or the OK tornadoes, so I'm emotionally detached from all of that. It would be different, of course, if I did know someone, and my heart and probably some of my charity, would go out to them. So let's find a picture of that homeless dog trying to get reunited with his master and "LIKE" the shit out of it, because that makes us better humans.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Goddamnit Scott, that's why I like and have followed you for over a decade... you have your head screwed on straight. It's not difficult to see that people like DDP are changing the world they live in on a daily basis and asking for nothing in return, yet so many people, WWE included, simply ignore it. I can't wait to see what comes of Jake Robert's promise to be in the 2014 Royal Rumble. If he is actually in the match, I wonder how the living embodiment of shilling, Michael Cole, will handle it. Will he mention Jake's jaw-dropping, inspiring-as-fuck comeback? Will he namedrop DDP? Will he chalk it up to the great lives WWE Legends™ automatically live once they have retired from the super-duper wonderful company that is WWE?

    As for WWE's image of not wanting to depress people... they do it every Memorial Day when they remind people of the lives lost in war, and I'm pretty sure they remind people of September 11th... but I guess that's all about "rising above" terrorism and Hitler or whoever, isn't it? Screw the lives lost and families affects, we got our freedom! 'MURICA! By the way, the freedom of information act says you really need to lighten up on all those phone sex calls you've been making... and that your detective character is ridiculous.

    I stopped buying whatever wholesome image the WWE was selling the moment they started running an anti-bullying campaign. That is, quite possibly, the largest public and/or corporate display of hypocrisy ever witnessed (and ignored) by the masses.

    ReplyDelete
  112. I would hope so if she's a marketing manager.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Thinking they should do it and thinking they are obligated to do it are two very different concepts.

    You're saying that WWE only cares about issues if it means THEY can promote it....while also saying that they should have mentioned something about this? Because you seem to be taking a "they don't really care, they just want to improve their image" one second, and then a "they don't care because they won't even mention it" approach with the other.



    Umm yeah? I don't really get why that's so hard to understand. You can make a passing mention to the state while they're pulling the bodies out.


    I'm saying neither of those things. What I'm saying is that they look ridiculous for making no mention of the tornado. I'm saying that this is a company that has no problem constantly promoting its charitable efforts, but remains stupidly silent while an entire city is ravaged. It makes no sense. Am I saying they didn't care? No, just that it LOOKS bad.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Really? I'm surprised one of the newz sitez hasn't mentioned that. But hey, sometimes people just don't really like each other, it happens.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Scream09_HartKillerMay 24, 2013 at 4:12 PM

    I think the point others has made is pretty valid - the work DDP's doing is best left as far away from WWE's influence as possible. Right now it's pure - a guy who has his shit together, is something of a motivational speaker and fitness/diet expert is using his knowledge to help detox friends who need it. Aside from the fact they'll pat themselves on the back and claim that it was WWE (and to a lesser extend DDP) that saved those who needed it, they'll surely want some input into the program and might manipulate it for their own self-serving reasons. I think DDP deserves to have a DVD or something filmed about this though.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Again, find one person that thinks WWE should be obligated to do something.

    Also, they didn't mention anything on Twitter until re-tweeting JR before the main event. I guess re-tweets about Curtis Axel were more important.

    ReplyDelete
  117. AmericanWolves02May 24, 2013 at 4:26 PM

    I don't think it is any sort of atrocity that WWE made no mention of the tornadoes. Like someone else said, we don't expect any other TV show's telecast to open with a graphic wishing the victims well. Why don't we hop on them too? This is just easy criticism I think. And it's a case of us being so accustomed to WWE trying to get any good publicity that they can that when they don't do it we get in a huff and when they do we call them out on it. I'd just rather they stay away from stuff this and stick to their program.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Let me tell you something, "brother": If TNA does NOT bring in Jake the Snake Roberts for Gut Check it would be the mother of ALL wasted opportunities. DDP can even be in his corner and promote DDP Yoga.

    ReplyDelete
  119. You never know these days, lots of unqualified people working.

    ReplyDelete
  120. I mentioned this above, most of us don't want to see WWE devoting any time during their scripted telecasts to tornadoes, hurricanes and in turn, also make-a-wish, be a star and whatever else is going on. However, THEY set the precedent, so Scott was just pointing out how they choose (when it benefits them) to kiss their own asses. And really, a 10 second line at the beginning of the broadcast would've been no big deal. The Voice and Dancing with the stars did it.

    ReplyDelete
  121. And lots of qualified people not working.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Caliber_VoorheesMay 24, 2013 at 5:17 PM

    They should cut Tammy off. They should cut off anyone who has to go 3 or 4 times. I mean, I've seen bits & pieces of that shoot interview where Tammy talks about them cutting her off, as if they owe her. As if it's THEIR responsibility to bankroll each trip to rehab. As if it's their fault she chooses to make the decisions to act the way she does. It's the typical American attitude of "OK, I've got myself into this mess, who's responsiblity is it to completely bail me out?"

    Scott Hall & Jake Roberts aren't the way they are because of the business. Just look at Jake's past, he would end up that way if he'd been a dentist. Would people say it's because of dentistry? No. Same with Scott Hall. I hate this whole "look what wrestling has done to them!" sort of excuse. Wrestling hasn't done shit. These people were irresponsible, and chose to do what they do. In reference to my earlier point, if a grocery store manager is an alcoholic, no one says "Oh snaps, look at what the rock bottom prices & express check out lanes have done to the poor man!"

    ReplyDelete
  123. "It's the typical American attitude of "OK, I've got myself into this mess, who's responsiblity is it to completely bail me out?""


    Unfortunately, that's kind of attitude and thinking is not reserved for just Americans.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Caliber_VoorheesMay 24, 2013 at 5:29 PM

    Very true. I just feel like I see it so much more than every where else.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but you live in the States, right? That's probably why. When I go to Spain to visit family, the sense of entitlement there is ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  126. It's amazing how many people are missing this point.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Yup, you got me, I'm a troll. If I don't appreciate Lerxst's "posting style", know the definition of jingoism, and point out that accusing Americans of 'jingoism' is not an act of 'jingoism', I am therefore a troll.

    ReplyDelete
  128. What got me about Tammy was when 411 or one of the other sites posted an article about her getting out of a 30 day stay at rehab and immediately tweeting "Free at last!" a few months back (I think it was just before she nearly pulled off the arrest double hat trick). If that's the attitude you have then you're not really trying to get clean, and she's been kicked out of a number of rehabs that WWE was paying for. And she's usually only going because it's court ordered. I agree, if there's anyone that should be cut off, it's her.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Totally. People get entrenched in their point and there's no getting the off of it sometimes.

    ReplyDelete
  130. I pretty much agree with Scott, they SHOULD have mentioned something about it. I think the one dynamic that people are missing (and it may have been mentioned but I'm too lazy to read through 144 comments), is that Raw is a live television show, and as such stuff major that happens that day, most LIVE television shows/events will mention it. That's the difference I think between say the Big Bang Theory and Raw. Now, I don't have quite the indignation that Scott has, but I think it would've been nice if they had mentioned it at least.

    ReplyDelete
  131. The problem is that this point is making a very broad statement based on a specific situation. The fact of the matter is that WWE more often than not DOES offer a word of sympathy for whatever tragic situation had just occurred. We didn't see WWE doing loads of videos in tribute to the victims of the Sandy Hook shooting....but they did do a 26 bell tribute at a PPV event for each of the lives lost. Surely that goes into the category of acknowledging a tragedy without capitalizing from it. There are other examples too, but that's probably the most recent one.

    The fact of the matter is that WWE has offered their sympathies to the victims of the Oklahoma tornado and provided information on how to donate -- on their Twitter page. So, basically, WWE gets attacked for patting themselves on the back because of the way they promote their charity work. Yet when they do something understated, it goes completely unnoticed and people criticize them for not acknowledging the tragedy.

    ReplyDelete
  132. The thing is, they have a connection to Oklahoma. JR, a staple of WWE for almost 20 years and a guy still with the company, lives in Oklahoma. A quick mention that JR is ok and they're thinking of the victims and survivors would've been nice. Again, I would rather they never go down that road with any of these type of things during their televised scripted broadcasts, but they set the precedent.

    ReplyDelete
  133. If WM30 was in Oklahoma next year, we'd have already seen 25 videos about what WWE is doing to help.

    ReplyDelete
  134. I guess I just think it's silly to watch Raw and to think, "Why are they not mentioning a news item."


    Yes, they mention THEIR charitable efforts....but that's what companies do -- they talk about the good things they do to help people in need. There should not be any expectation to discuss world news, though.


    I saw all of Raw and I was fully aware of the devastation of the tornado. At no point did I think to myself, "Well that's strange, they haven't mentioned the tornado yet..." I'm kinda shocked anybody would have that expectation at all.

    ReplyDelete
  135. Exactly! Tell brak_attack, he still doesn't get it.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Like how they stopped airing a message from the President at the Tribute to the Troops event once a Democrat took office. Oh wait....you mean they still do that??? Oh well...

    ReplyDelete
  137. So wait, I don't get something about something that hasn't actually happened?

    ReplyDelete
  138. It's called a hypothetical. Don't be obtuse.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Scott Hall's a through-and-through man's man, and that's one of the demographics that got lost in the technological loop.


    Watching my father use newer technology, like, you know, a laptop or a microwave, is like trying to get Robert De Niro to do something in Awakenings.

    ReplyDelete
  140. You do know they're a wrestling company, right? I would definitely say that, for them, getting over a new talent is more important than publicly mentioning a tragedy that, all things considered, have nothing to do with them.


    And reading the comments in this post, it looks like there are A LOT of people who feel like WWE was obligated to mention the tragedy. Use the phrase "should have" as much as you want, but that's just a matter of semantics.

    ReplyDelete
  141. I was shocked I got my dad to follow instructions to a streaming site so he could watch whatever football (soccer) game he wanted from Spain and England. He was amazed that such thing existed on the internet. It was hilarious to watch him try to operate a mouse! lol.

    ReplyDelete
  142. "Obtuse? OBTUSE!?"

    ReplyDelete
  143. "Obtuse? OBTUSE!?"

    ReplyDelete
  144. Beat you to it. DOWNVOTE! BOO! BOO!

    ReplyDelete
  145. lmao! That's too funny and the fact that you and brak did it at the exact same time. Bravo.

    ReplyDelete
  146. up-vote from me.

    ReplyDelete
  147. Keeps me level. It'll keep me from getting a big head.

    ReplyDelete
  148. I lived just outside of New Orleans, and my home was destroyed in Hurricane Katrina back in 2005. Did WWE put any kind of graphic up to donate to the Red Cross after that?

    ReplyDelete
  149. Michael Vick did run a vast criminal empire for years. He wasn't just fighting dogs.

    ReplyDelete
  150. http://www.411mania.com/wrestling/tv_reports/30970/411s-WWE-Raw-Report-9.05.05.htm


    Multiple segments with Linda McMahon including a number to donate, etc, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  151. VINCE MCMAHON DOESN'T CARE ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE!

    ReplyDelete
  152. I haven't responded to anyof your posts bro. I was just telling two legit posters they were wasting time explaining themselves to a troll. I'd like to elaborate more but I only give trolls 4 sentences a week. Reply back in 7 days if you wish to continue.

    ReplyDelete
  153. Here is the tornado you people need to be talking about.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYKwzEvx5M4

    ReplyDelete
  154. AmericanWolves02May 24, 2013 at 6:55 PM

    Yeah that's what I'm saying. I think most of this anger is from the fact that WWE so often does things supporting causes to stroke their ego that when they don't do it, it's more anger focused at their inconsistency than them not actually recognizing what is happening.

    ReplyDelete
  155. To that I would say, look at the video that opened WrestleMania 29. It was a two and a half minute video on the devastation of Sandy without any reference whatsoever to anything WWE or its Superstars did to help.

    ReplyDelete
  156. I remember that. I also remember the 25 other videos they played touting all the charity work they were doing for Sandy.

    ReplyDelete
  157. That isn't semantics.

    ReplyDelete
  158. With the CBS/Adult Swim example, you could argue the case just happens to be that one company's programming is more appropriate or sensitive than another. Personally, things like this don't bother me.

    Here's the point: they donate and participate in charities, and they love to pat themselves on the back for it. They've spent large portions of their shows playing video packages of their wrestlers visiting children. They want to be kid-and-parent-friendly, and to come across as a "positive force" in the entertainment world.

    It just seems off to me that they wouldn't spend a minute out of three hours to mention something like this, especially when everybody knows they spend most of it on nonsense that merely serves the purpose of getting the show to the three hour mark. They're not obligated to do this, but when they otherwise jump at the chance to promote their goodwill it reeks of a calculated, disgusting corporate piece of shit being behind it.

    Finally, in my opinion they SHOULD donate and participate in charity work, but they shouldn't air it. Honestly, Raw should be fairly insulated from reality. I hate segments that make them think they have their finger on the pulse of pop culture. Of course, I understand if a show or two is dedicated to a dead wrestler and I get the 9/11 Smackdown taking place.


    Wrestling is escapism, end of story.

    ReplyDelete
  159. So what exactly is it that you want/expect? Based on the comments here, it seems like they can't simply mention a tragedy. They can't mention what they do to assist in a tragedy. They can't NOT mention a tragedy. Surely you can read the comments in this post and see that this is the definition of "damned if they do, damned if they don't."

    ReplyDelete
  160. This is the best post on this thread.

    ReplyDelete
  161. I don't them want them acknowledging anything like that on Raw. That isn't the place for it.


    The reason why I'm on their case, and Scott's original point, is that they pick and choose what to call attention to based on how it will benefit them.

    ReplyDelete
  162. But even that isn't entirely true. How did they benefit by doing a 26 bell tribute for the victims of the Sandy Hook tragedy?

    ReplyDelete
  163. I should take a leaf from WWE's book and bring up all the times I made a good point.

    ReplyDelete
  164. Cole would handle it the way Vince tells him to handle it.

    Unless there's technical difficulties. Then it'll be "Oh my!"

    ReplyDelete
  165. But don't forget, only use them when it suits your argument. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  166. I think it's extremely unfair to say that they promote "large portions of their shows" with videos of their charitable work. Raw is a 3 hour, 15 minute show. Combined, these videos add up to, what, 10-15 minutes TOPS? And those are on occasions that they're very heavy on the promotions.


    And to say that they should do charity work but not promote it is unfair. They're company in the public eye and their image is very important to them. Sure, they tend to take things a bit far (as they're apt to do), but it's really no different than anything any other company or even individual person does. And it's not as if they show a video every time John Cena opens the door for somebody. They do a whole lot that we don't see.

    ReplyDelete
  167. Why is it unfair? They're supposed to be broadcasting a scripted TV show. You don't see GE show the SNL cast doing charity work during their broadcasts, do you? They want their cake and eat it too.

    ReplyDelete
  168. Texas Tornado really should have joined up with Earthquake and Typhoon. Hurricane came in a little too late. Lightning Kid. Harlem Heat. Lance Storm. Any other natural phenomenons I missed? ( a diva named Sue Nommy? Tsunami? )

    ReplyDelete
  169. I can't testify how much they run the video packages because I don't watch regularly at all, but Scott's recaps lead me to believe that they do it enough to fill time. I last watched a Raw that I had recorded over six months ago and I ended up having to fast forward through a lot of it. Also, I acquired WrestleMania a day after the fact, and they showed a lot of that stuff because they didn't have television ratings to contend with. Don't you find that interesting?


    If I came across as holier than thou about donating to charity, perhaps I put it incorrectly: What I meant to say was, it's just my opinion that they should donate. However, what is holier than thou is making donations and gloating about it. Individuals and businesses make anonymous (to the public, at least) donations all the time, and there's a humility to it.

    The good deed itself should make the giver feel better about themselves, not the praise they get in return.

    ReplyDelete
  170. It is unfair to say that 15 minutes of a nearly 200 minute program is "a large portion of the show."

    ReplyDelete
  171. This is so fucking stupid.

    Seriously, who gives even a fraction of a shit?

    ReplyDelete
  172. me...


    *looks down*

    ReplyDelete
  173. Te fact that te bombings occurred and no one knew who

    ReplyDelete
  174. And?

    The bombing was done, the police were following them.

    The horrible working conditions of third world countries our nation and many nations around the world exploit is an ongoing problem.

    And yet again, 1,127 lives lost due to horrific negliance and greed, versus 34 lives lost due to fanaticism and a desire for vengeance.

    The Boston Marathon Bombing is important, but the Savar collapse is thirty three times more important.

    ReplyDelete
  175. If they didn't mention anything about Super Tuesday in 2008 or Joplin, MO then they shouldn't even bother with talking about this either.

    ReplyDelete
  176. Well, maybe Steve Austin or Mick Foley as retribution for the cookie incident, but otherwise, no.

    ReplyDelete
  177. All Triple H's fault.

    ReplyDelete
  178. Wasn't the guy Stallworth hit also drunk while walking in the middle of the street at night?

    ReplyDelete
  179. No one has said WWE is obligated to mention it, but a lot of people are bitching about the fact WWE didn't mention it. If they're not obligated to do it, why all the bitching? Because YOU (and whoever else agrees) believes it's the "right thing to do"?

    ReplyDelete
  180. I think we're still a selfish species but we now like the idea of other people thinking we care. Look at what people in this very post are outraged about: not the fact WWE didn't donate time and/or money to helping those in need, but the fact WWE didn't SEND VERBAL WELL WISHES.

    ReplyDelete
  181. How was any precedent set? They're completely different situations. One is charity work and the other is a natural disaster or, in the case of Sandy Hook or Boston, a tragedy. I see zero similarity in these situations.



    Even the end-results are different. With their Make-A-Wish or "Be a Star" segments, they get to give themselves praise for what they're doing. With a passing mention of a disaster or tragedy, they get...?


    From what I've seen, WWE mentions the real world in two instances: 1) if it directly involves them (Make-A-Wish), and 2) if it's so big on a national scale that they can't *not* mention it (9/11).

    ReplyDelete
  182. Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy does not fit either of your two criteria. Also, since when are disasters not tragedy? Regardless, I would like for their "universe" to be encapsulated to it. Keep all of the make a wish, be a star, tragedies, disasters, etc. out of it. They pride themselves in being "episodic tv", well keep it to that.

    ReplyDelete
  183. Actually, the average RAW contains about 140 minutes or so of actual air time. Fifteen minutes is 10% of the show. That's significant time that could be devoted to the, you know, show. More wrestling time, more time to get some new guys over, whatever.

    ReplyDelete
  184. Caliber_VoorheesMay 25, 2013 at 2:33 AM

    Yeah, I live in Washington.

    I know Europe can be sort of snobbish, and I don't want to say they have the right, but at least they can back a superior attitude in a way. They have national health care, available education, and aren't nearly as oppressed as America is.

    We have pathetic test scores, pathetic debt, we force ourselves into other countries while trying to police the World, and it's embarrassing. Anytime something bad happens, Americans want to know who's fault it is. What? You say point the finger inward? That's insane! I'm American! It's clearly someone else's fault! It's pathetic.

    In my favorite documentary, Bigger, Faster, Stronger, there's a scene with VP Biden, and he says "If you were going to show a movie to a foreign country, to show them what America is like, what would you show?" and I immediately thought of King Kong. We go some where we don't belong, we rape & pillage, take something from it's homeland, truck it over here, exploit it for all it's worth, then kill it.

    ReplyDelete
  185. I agree that they could've mentioned that JR was fine and done a quick acknowledgement, but honestly, what does it matter that the WWE "is thinking" of any tragedy?

    ReplyDelete
  186. Because they are going to come to the rescue on Monday's RAW, and post a billion Red Cross numbers for Oklahoma. They are going to act like Vince lost his entire family, dog, and cat in that tornado and WWE CARES DAMMIT. All when they didnt even take 5 seconds to recognize the tragedy on Monday when it actually happened.


    And that is the difference between actually helping, and whoring out 20 dead people under rubble for a few seconds of PR.


    Brutal, but it's what this company does.

    ReplyDelete
  187. As someone who lives about 10 minutes away from Moore, OK, and has students whose houses were destroyed in the tornadoes, I can honestly say I did not give two shits as to whether or not WWE mentioned it. There's been enough support from neighbors, celebrities, charitable organizations, and politicians thus far where WWE's mindset never entered my own consciousness.



    I actually watched Raw that night to escape the coverage of the disasters (not mentioned too much are the damages and lives taken in about 4 other towns in Oklahoma over a two day period, thus the plural form of disaster).

    ReplyDelete
  188. And I kept telling you I'm not KB's mom......

    ReplyDelete
  189. Sounds like you're experiencing a serious case of "grass is greener on the other side" syndrome. I've lived in multiple places and trust me, it ain't so bad here. I think some of this stuff comes with being a super power. Look at China and Russia and compare living there to here. Shit, even a great economic power like Germany doesn't have full free speech or free press and has all kinds of laws against video games. When Spain and England and Portugal were super powers, they freely engaged in slave trading and destroying civilizations. Trust me, the US has a reason to feel some nationalism about itself. The funny thing is, we're all kids of immigrants, yet we still feel pride about this country. Think about that.

    ReplyDelete
  190. In Germany's defense, the loss of two straight world wars will fuck up a first world nation's psyche.

    Don't believe me? Both Germany and Japan are economic powerhouses on the cutting edge of technology. Despite generally being quite agreeable with the United States, they outclass them in many instances but almost make sure not to outshine. They're like the Ray Manzareks to America's Jim Morrison.

    So, why play second fiddle to such boorish buffoons who can barely speak their own language properly? After all, they can speak multiple fluently!

    Shame.

    Why?

    Because they can't get enough of shit and piss porn. They love it when a woman is getting pissed in her mouth, and they love it when somebody's getting shit on. In the case of the Japanese, they love it when the girl appears unwilling and degraded, but they can't bear the shame of showing their genitals without blurring.

    I'm working on a theory, and the theory is that losing world wars fucks with the overall self-esteem of a population so badly that it will accept so many social deficiencies (the aforementioned scatological porn, unhealthy firearm obsession, public drunkenness...) while being naturally gifted at serving the world with technological advancements.



    ...Where was I? Oh, yes: Germany's free speech, or lack thereof.

    Yeah... they really don't have the confidence to grant their citizens such a thing after all of that. They bury their pain deep inside, those poor Germans...

    (I'm actually part-German, and my relatives tell me that they can be very PC-sensitive despite their gung-ho attitudes towards extremist behaviour. In a nutshell. I've never been.)

    ReplyDelete
  191. I was almost born in Germany. My grandfather worked there for 20 years after WW2 as part of Europe's West Germany reconstruction. Despite all of the BS that occurs in America, you pretty much have the right to express yourself however you want, play whatever games you wish, make the movies you want (and see), etc, etc. For me, personal freedom trumps just about everything.

    ReplyDelete