Jump to content

Snitsky's back acne

Members
  • Content Count

    10,296
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

462 Excellent

About Snitsky's back acne

Profile Information

  • Location
    Hull UK

Recent Profile Visitors

10,327 profile views
  1. Which one - the one where I said nothing about racism / homophobia or the one where I was responding to other people that initially had brought up racism / homophobia? I'm not quite sure what it is I'm meant to 'be' according to you - a horrible racist homophobe or a misunderstood victim? I mean, to clarify, I'm neither but I'm just trying to work out what angle you're coming at me from.
  2. Please read my previous post - the last paragraph outlines what I am talking about.
  3. I have attempted to clarify things. If there's anything you are still unclear on please let me know and I will clarify it. It seems you still are on the racism/homophobia thing so let me clarify again: I did not mention racism/homophobia. I was not the first one to bring it up or include it as the focal point of my argument. I did not do this because that was not even part of my thinking. Had it been, I would have made sure to emphasise that - after all, I would not want people thinking I am racist or homophobic. Several people HAVE made assumptions - including the initial racism/homophobia thing - about the things I have put and I have admitted to not always being clear in how I put things across. It's why I ask that if something is not clear, PLEASE don't just jump to conclusions - ask me what I meant and I will explain. I can't help people making assumptions I can only try to clarify or correct things as best as I can. It would seem that is 'not acceptable' to those, such as yourself, who seem intent to believe something of me that is not the case. As I said previously, I was expecting to get aggro for what somebody said at the start - being one of 'those' fans in my younger days - but this has got ridiculous. Do I wish wrestling would loosen the reigns on what is acceptable these days? Yes - but I'm talking about things like shouting and swearing at wrestlers [which people have made valid counterpoints to and I will gladly cop to being a dick about for not finding unacceptable] NOT things like racism/homophobia etc.
  4. I demand to know whee you got that statistic!
  5. Not everything, but if somebody's quoting percentages I like to have a bit of an idea where they're getting that from. I take shit like that seriously. Nobody's randomly throwing out false statistics on my watch!
  6. Yeah, it's not like I'm being bombarded with loads of different posts or anything...
  7. Do you take everything in life so literally? Again with the whole 'well if you really meant that you would have said this' and 'well clearly even though you didn't say it you were implying it' stuff? Yes, we can go over the 'well if you'd have said this instead' stuff but that's pointless. I can only try and clarify things [I admit to not always being clear] or go 'No, that's not what I meant'. Other than that I really don't know. I'm certainly not going to say I meant something that I didn't just because someone thinks I did.
  8. How has this leap been made? I was referencing stuff like 'fat prick' and 'cunt' - now of course they are not worse than racism or homophobia [although cunt is obviously very strong] but that was not even on my agenda. Go back and read the initial things I posted - I didn't reference or imply [at least I thought I hadn't] anything racist or homophobic in what was being said - that has been woven into the narrative by everyone else and addressed by me to the point where now that seems to be THE thing everyone is hanging their hat on. If people want to discuss that, fair enough, it's obviously a massively important topic to discuss but, honestly, have a go at me for calling Ricky Knight a 'fat prick' when I was 17 if you like but Jesus Christ the whole 'well you were CLEARLY implying racism/homophobia when you said this thing that was nothing to do with racism/homophobia' rhetoric is getting REALLY tiresome. If I was the one that had brought up racism/homophobia to begin with I could accept it as a stick to beat me with. I didn't. If I had made it the focal point of my initial arguments I could accept that too. I didn't.
  9. I didn't. I only started to include it as a response to those who WERE making it the point of their arguments. See how easy it is to misinterpret stuff?
  10. Except nobody outwardly [apart from Mum] seemed to think of them as a nuisance. Everyone else that I saw [and obviously I did not see everyone in the building] was either laughing at the old woman getting so involved or enjoying the interplay between the drunk guys and the wrestlers.
  11. I didn't think I could have made it any clearer when I said 'It was never right'. How have you managed to get 'you're talking like it's a good thing' from me going 'It was never right'? It WAS accepted. I can't change that. It's an uncomfortable truth. It should never have been accepted, but it was. It is an easily provable fact. As recently as last year it was STILL accepted in Mexico [see: the Cody incident]. It doesn't make it right. Do you need me to put bells and whistles on it to make it clearer?
  12. You're right, my original paragraph doesn't mention TV ratings or live attendance. It was massive and hugely unforgivable oversight on my part. Had anyone asked me to clarify what I meant [which you did], I would have told them [which I did]. Still, it's nice to see that despite me not originally stating specifically what I meant you've just assumed you know what I meant instead.
  13. Good because I couldn't be any clearer in repeatedly saying that's not what I'm advocating. Okay, let's take our little old lady in Cleethorpes example shall we? Should she have been thrown out/asked to leave/reprimanded because she was telling the wrestlers to 'Fuck off back to Norwich' and calling them 'wankers' near little children? After all, this particular event was not an 18+ show, there were quite a few others kids there and I'm sure the Mum was not impressed. Also at the show was a small group of vocal drunk guys [I'd say mid-to-late twenties] who were shouting obscenities at the wrestlers. Thoughts?
  14. I think the 'What exactly is PC?' point is valid as it certainly seems to some that being 'non-PC' automatically means being racist/sexist/homophobic etc. However, wrestling always WAS immune from the normal rules of society - watch ECW, watch old-school Memphis, watch Attitude-Era WWF... shit, watch 80's WWF..... look at old school British wrestling posters - 'The Gay One', 'Busty Bombshell' etc etc. It was racist, it was sexist, it was homophobic, it was all the things that would be considered 'politically incorrect' and it was never 'right' BUT it was accepted. People knew that wrestling would play on their prejudices and always go for the lowest common denominator. Wrestling attracted the working classes, the people who WOULD go to shows to call the heels names and shout all night.... and it was incredibly popular. It doesn't mean that all those people were racist, sexist, homophobic etc [although I'm certain there were those people who absolutely were] it just meant that there was an accepted understanding about what was being presented within the context of the show. People didn't call the wrestlers names to elicit a chuckle from their mates either - although I'm certain that's why they do it now - they did it because they hated that wrestler and the people around them either did it even more or disagreed with them and cheered loudly to show their support to the wrestler that fan was putting down. Again, I am NOT advocating racism, sexism, homophobia etc. I AM saying that this rose-coloured view of wrestling as a utopia of love and acceptance where everyone can feel like they belong goes against everything wrestling is/was.... and again, I am NOT saying it shouldn't be like that. I'm saying that it has adversely effected wrestling in regards to overall appeal and how it is enjoyed by the audience. Do we go back to all the things I mentioned above? No. Of course not. However moving wrestling away from going after people's most primitive emotions and instincts turns it into politely watching an athletic display - and while that's impressive and can be enjoyable it's not, in my opinion, 'pro wrestling'. I went to a show a few months ago in Cleethorpes and there was an old lady at ringside with her husband and she was calling the wrestlers names and telling them to 'fuck off' [I'm sure she told Ricky Knight Jr to 'Fuck off back to Norwich!' at one point]. She would stand up and get in their faces and make the 'wanker' hand gesture at them. It certainly appeared from my perspective that everyone around her found her antics enjoyable, some even joined in. Equally, I'm sure the Mum with the two little kids wasn't impressed... but that's wrestling. The old lady went to enjoy herself. She didn't seem to care about botched moves or the star rating of the match - she went to give the wrestlers she didn't like shit and cheer and slap hands with the ones she did... and she seemed to be having the time of her life. Maybe that makes her a 'shitty person', I dunno... Oh, and Super Bacon - 'massively to it's detriment' was in reference to how it has effected live attendance, TV ratings etc. 'I'm not saying it's a negative' is, as I said, in regards to how it is presented and received by the audience [i.e people NOT yelling homophobic or racist things and promotions excluding characters that are negative stereotypes etc], Two totally different things. Hope that clears it up for you.
×
×
  • Create New...