Main Event Jobber Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Punk is a heel. He is insulting the crowd. By calling the fan a 'homo' (a gay slur), he is therefore stating that calling someone homosexual, whether they are or not, would be an insult. Homosexuality is not something that should be seen as being negative. The fact that the fan didn't not complain, does not mean that other people would be offended by it. 1 person does not represent an entire section of society, big or small. but where any gay people actually offended. If someone gay came forward then fair enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syl Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 GLADD have come forward. They are offering training to WWE. That's the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cum Doctor Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 but where any gay people actually offended. Â Stop asking completely irrelevant questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Under the PG era, we obviously don't want words like "homo" in wrestling. And, like I said earlier, CM Punk's behaviour is completely reprehensible. But I still think there's an acceptable context for a heel to be anti-gay. Wrestling is about battling ideologies, so I think it would be fine if you had an anti-gay wrestler whose every action and argument regarding the issue was shown to be stupid, illogical and wrong and he was bested. I know McMahon is a hardcore Republican, but why can't wrestling be used to realize more liberal ends? Because, much as you (and Vince, for that matter) may like to believe otherwise, wrestling is dumb redneck panto shit that appeals largely to people who are bigoted as fuck. They've done heel Republican archetypes (JBL, DiBiase, Vince himself), but they can't really do a Democrat babyface. "This Sunday at the pay-per-view, I'm not going to fight you because violence is wrong, let's reach an amicable compromise" just doesn't work that well in wrestling. If you've got a gay character wrestling in an arena of 15,000 people, he's only going to get two possible reactions: Â 1. Boooooooooooo! 2. LOL he bit the baddie's arse and felt him up! Yayyyyyyyy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vice Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Because, much as you (and Vince, for that matter) may like to believe otherwise, wrestling is dumb redneck panto shit that appeals largely to people who are bigoted as fuck. They've done heel Republican archetypes (JBL, DiBiase, Vince himself), but they can't really do a Democrat babyface. "This Sunday at the pay-per-view, I'm not going to fight you because violence is wrong, let's reach an amicable compromise" just doesn't work that well in wrestling. If you've got a gay character wrestling in an arena of 15,000 people, he's only going to get two possible reactions:Â 1. Boooooooooooo! 2. LOL he bit the baddie's arse and felt him up! Yayyyyyyyy! I never said wrestling is high art. It's a simple morality play, and you can easily adjust the meaning within that. Â As for bigoted rednecks, fuck 'em. It's 2011, and I think a lot of people are more forward-thinking, especially the younger generation (i.e. the teens, I doubt the kiddies are very politically-aware) that Vince is trying to appeal to. And it's not just about gay characters. Think about how much better Muhammad Hassan could have been handled as a character who was mistreated and faced oppression and therefore fought the good fight against prejudice, rather than a terrorist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiffy Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Surely calling people gay is less offensive to reasonably behaviour than punting people in the head hard enough to cause hard concussions? It's within a storyline, why should wwe wrestlers be held to a higher standard than any other fictional show? Does the soprano's need to learn that calling people fanguls and eggplants is wrong cos it's homophobic and racist? Or can we accept that having racist and sexist characters within entertainment is ok as long as it's not presented as something to aspire too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdh85 Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Surely calling people gay is less offensive to reasonably behaviour than punting people in the head hard enough to cause hard concussions? It's within a storyline, why should wwe wrestlers be held to a higher standard than any other fictional show? Does the soprano's need to learn that calling people fanguls and eggplants is wrong cos it's homophobic and racist? Or can we accept that having racist and sexist characters within entertainment is ok as long as it's not presented as something to aspire too. Â It wasn't in the context of a storyline, though, was it? Yes it was in the context of Punk being a heel, but there was no particular storyline context for his homophobia, nor was it particularly faithful or relevant to his character. CM Punk the television character has no history of homophobia, nor is he going to recieve any storyline comeuppance for being a homophobe. Â Also, the reason GLAAD are breathing down WWE's neck to begin with is because characters who are presented as role-models frequently make homophobic jokes on WWE televison - namely John Cena, their biggest babyface, the face of the company and the hero to millions of children, who teaches them to point and laugh at the girly-men. This is then condoned by the announcers (the voice of the company) who giggle like schoolboys as the fans cheer Cena on for his 'hilarious' suggestions that his opponents bat for the other side. Â WWE bascially have a long history of what amounts to condoning homophobic bullying. They've taken steps to correct that in recent months, but they still need to tread very carefully around the issue at the moment. Â Because of this the whole Punk thing has been blown way out of proportion - it seems to me from the video that Punk was to some extent being deliberately childish and semi-ironic in his choice of insults - "You have a vaginaaaaaaaaaaa!"? Come on. But that doesn't change the fact that using "homo" as an insult is homophobic, is not contextualised or justified in any way by current WWE storylines, and would seem to me to be out of character for Punk who normally comes across as a thoughtful and intelligent chap even when playing heel. He probably should have known better, but then he was just engaging in a bit of enjoyable banter with a fan at a live event and was not expecting the video to be made widely available. I really, really doubt he'd have done the same thing on live television for mainstream consumption. Â Unless this whole thing is all part of the work of course. I secretly suspect Vince McMahon is still playing us all like a fiddle, even in the Internet age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Duke Posted July 10, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted July 10, 2011 Bullshit. Sorry, but you're totally wrong and profoundly ignorant if you believe this. The "N-Word", or "Nigger", is a word which carries the weight of hundreds of years of exploitation, repression and segregation. You can't possibly believe that one man calling another man a "homo" is anything even remotely similar to a white man calling a black man a "nigger". Homosexuals in the western world, particularly in America, still have a way to go before they're completely accepted for who they are, but they're certainly not legally permitted to be treated like second class citizens like black people once were. When Homosexuals are banned from public places, banned from attending public schools, stopped in the street and searched by Police for no reason and forbidden from owning property or running businesses then we can start drawing comparisons to the words "homo" and "nigger", but until that day comes "nigger" will always be incalculably worse. It was illegal to be homosexual for quite some time. Second class citizens? They were criminals. It's just that it's impossible to identify a homosexual just by looking at them.  That said, the N-word does have far stronger connotations than fag does, but the argument that gay people haven't had it all that bad is "totally wrong and profoundly ignorant". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 I never said wrestling is high art. It's a simple morality play, and you can easily adjust the meaning within that. Yes, and you can sell out the fifty seats in a room above a pub that doubles as a liberal arts centre. If you're trying to sell in the region of 50,000 tickets a week, 51 weeks a year, you go for the lowest common denominator and the mindset that will appeal to the sort of people who consider buying tickets to see men in pants pretending to fight. Â As for bigoted rednecks, fuck 'em. It's 2011, and I think a lot of people are more forward-thinking, especially the younger generation (i.e. the teens, I doubt the kiddies are very politically-aware) that Vince is trying to appeal to. And it's not just about gay characters. Think about how much better Muhammad Hassan could have been handled as a character who was mistreated and faced oppression and therefore fought the good fight against prejudice, rather than a terrorist. Have you ever watched wrestling before? When the crowds are doing those "USA! USA!" chants at jingoistic bollocks, I don't think they're being ironic. The sort of people who want to see plays about mistreated muslims fighting prejudice aren't going to touch pro wrestling with a shitty stick. The sort of people who want to see pro wrestling don't want to see plays about mistreated muslims fighting prejudice. It's lovely to think that there's millions of Guardian reader equivalents all over the world waiting to buy tickets to Smackdown, but there aren't, and Muhammad Hassan teaming up with John Cena to battle two racists won't change that. It'll just make the people at the trailer park spend their dole on something else instead of wrestling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny McBride Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 That might be true, except for the fact that ethnic babyfaces have been huge money draws throughout the entire history of pro-wrestling and the positive press that could have been generated with a well-drawn Hassan character would have outweighed any potential revenue they lost by not playing down to the lowest prejudices of some segments of the audience. It would certainly have outweighed the negative attention they get when they do the mind-bendingly stupid shit they actually did with him, or when they don't warn their guys to within an inch of their lives that while they're working in partnership with GLAAD, they don't fucking well use gay slurs as insults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wendell Cooley Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 It's not just inbred, trailer park denizens who watch wrestling, though, is it? People from all walks of life are fans, even if they're shy about admitting it. The reason wrestling crowds chant stuff like 'USA!' or 'faggot!' Is because they've been conditioned to do so - it's what's expected of them, they're only going along with the show. It's not difficult to incite a mob - just ask Hitler - group-think is obviously a big part of how wrestling works. If the fans are easily-led mongoloids, as we've agreed, then why should it be difficult to get them to cheer a gay character? Gorgeous George was very popular, after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators PowerButchi Posted July 11, 2011 Moderators Share Posted July 11, 2011 Gorgeous George was a hated heel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wendell Cooley Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 He was a heel they loved to hate. There's a difference. People loved seeing him. He wasn't subject to homophobic attacks or anything, was he? Maybe I'm not being cynical enough, but I think audiences at the time were just in awe of the guy, rather than wishing he died of AIDS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wendell Cooley Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Of course AIDS wasn't a concern at the time, but you know what I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Miz Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Send Pat Patterson in to sort all this mess out. He could give the entire roster one on one sessions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.