Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mat

AEW Double or Nothing

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Snitsky's back acne said:

Not very 'inclusive' of them...

If we're going there then I'm fully behind "no platforming" Nigel Farage, Tommy Robinson and Vince Russo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of the guys seemed to make a special effort with their outfits, so I wonder if Fight For The Fallen will have a subtle theme of paying tribute to dead wrestlers. If that is the plan Jericho should be kept off the event 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, simonworden said:

Would it be ruined if they hold off things like that until the TV show? They don't have to make him a plant just get him out in the ring on some pretense and then go from there. I feel like the first few PPV's and in-between shows (not sure how they are being broadcast)

According to PW Insider the in-between shows will be broadcast in the states on the 'Bleacher Report Live' subscription service - owned by 'Warner Media' who also own 'TNT'.Not sure where they will be broadcast in the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Otto Dem Wanz said:

If we're going there then I'm fully behind "no platforming" Nigel Farage, Tommy Robinson and Vince Russo.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, it's just a personal annoyance of mine when people promote 'We are for everyone!' when it's clear they're not.
'We are for everyone that agrees with our ideology' is actually a more accurate term. 
'Inclusion' is in most instances actually incredibly exclusionary and while everyone has the right to refuse whoever they want if they are promoting an event don't call yourself 'all inclusive' and then ban or silence those you have philosophical or moral differences with.
'I'm really tolerant' - no, you're actually not if you are only tolerant to those who take the same view on things that you do - in fact that is incredibly intolerant. 
True tolerance is allowing EVERYONE a platform - your Farage's, your Russo's etc. - and then debating / challenging them on their views.

Anyway, I'll climb down off my soap box now. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we’ll get them on ITV4 on a slight delay

3 minutes ago, CliveG said:

According to PW Insider the in-between shows will be broadcast in the states on the 'Bleacher Report Live' subscription service - owned by 'Warner Media' who also own 'TNT'.Not sure where they will be broadcast in the UK.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, CliveG said:

According to PW Insider the in-between shows will be broadcast in the states on the 'Bleacher Report Live' subscription service

That would explain why they gave practically every match A or A+.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Snitsky's back acne said:

I don't necessarily disagree with you, it's just a personal annoyance of mine when people promote 'We are for everyone!' when it's clear they're not.
'We are for everyone that agrees with our ideology' is actually a more accurate term. 
'Inclusion' is in most instances actually incredibly exclusionary and while everyone has the right to refuse whoever they want if they are promoting an event don't call yourself 'all inclusive' and then ban or silence those you have philosophical or moral differences with.
'I'm really tolerant' - no, you're actually not if you are only tolerant to those who take the same view on things that you do - in fact that is incredibly intolerant. 
True tolerance is allowing EVERYONE a platform - your Farage's, your Russo's etc. - and then debating / challenging them on their views.

Anyway, I'll climb down off my soap box now. Sorry.

Gonna have to climb on to mine, then.

Never agreed with that argument. It's most frequently used by glib far-right figures to silence anyone challenging them (I know that's not what you're doing, but, with all due respect, I think you've bought into their bullshit).

The interpretation of tolerance you've just described there is simplistic. Allowing intolerant people to spout things that will hurt or damage others is not tolerance, and preventing them is not intolerance.

Your rights end where mine begin. Otherwise, you can simply say "What sort of law allows me not to murder people?! I should be allowed to kill whomever I want!" 

EDIT: Also, no-platforming is not against freedom of speech. That's another glib argument used by hateful people who want to silence their critics. "Freedom of speech" means the government doesn't arrest you for what you say. It doesn't mean private organisations are forced to give you a platform.

And yes, they are inclusive - of people who don't want to hurt anyone else. There's no such thing as "completely inclusive" because to do that you have to allow people who will hurt others you include, e.g. white supremacists and BME people, Holocaust deniers and Jews, misogynists and women, homophobes and LGBTQIA people.

Edited by Carbomb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Chest Rockwell said:

I suggest this discussion should really go over to off topic if you want to have it. Doesn't really seem relevant here.

Yeah, true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Snitsky's back acne said:

I don't necessarily disagree with you, it's just a personal annoyance of mine when people promote 'We are for everyone!' when it's clear they're not.
'We are for everyone that agrees with our ideology' is actually a more accurate term. 
'Inclusion' is in most instances actually incredibly exclusionary and while everyone has the right to refuse whoever they want if they are promoting an event don't call yourself 'all inclusive' and then ban or silence those you have philosophical or moral differences with.
'I'm really tolerant' - no, you're actually not if you are only tolerant to those who take the same view on things that you do - in fact that is incredibly intolerant. 
True tolerance is allowing EVERYONE a platform - your Farage's, your Russo's etc. - and then debating / challenging them on their views.

Anyway, I'll climb down off my soap box now. Sorry.

Vince Russo has made all his views clear and plain for years now, on shoots, interviews, podcasts and social media. He's hardly like he's been silenced, Mr C. Dad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Carbomb said:

Gonna have to climb on to mine, then.

Never agreed with that argument. It's most frequently used by glib far-right figures to silence anyone challenging them (I know that's not what you're doing, but, with all due respect, I think you've bought into their bullshit).

The interpretation of tolerance you've just described there is simplistic. Allowing intolerant people to spout things that will hurt or damage others is not tolerance, and preventing them is not intolerance.

Your rights end where mine begin. Otherwise, you can simply say "What sort of law allows me not to murder people?! I should be allowed to kill whomever I want!" 

I think that's simplistic too though, in fairness.
'It's most frequently used by glib far-right figures to silence anyone challenging them' - how is allowing everyone a platform, regardless of views, silencing anyone? Surely NOT allowing someone a platform is silencing them, is it not? 
All 'no-platforming' Russo has done in this instance is further martyr'd him to those who buy into his doctrine in the first place.
It's all it ever does. It makes the one being silenced claim the victim - 'I'm being persecuted for my views' - and can actually have the reverse effect to what was intended. It can actually draw more focus to them - Shit, look what it's done for Farage!

As I say, they were obviously perfectly within their rights to ban Russo or anyone as it was their show but this 'we are tolerant of everyone' rhetoric is blatantly not true. 



 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Snitsky's back acne said:

I don't necessarily disagree with you, it's just a personal annoyance of mine when people promote 'We are for everyone!' when it's clear they're not.
'We are for everyone that agrees with our ideology' is actually a more accurate term. 
'Inclusion' is in most instances actually incredibly exclusionary and while everyone has the right to refuse whoever they want if they are promoting an event don't call yourself 'all inclusive' and then ban or silence those you have philosophical or moral differences with.
'I'm really tolerant' - no, you're actually not if you are only tolerant to those who take the same view on things that you do - in fact that is incredibly intolerant. 
True tolerance is allowing EVERYONE a platform - your Farage's, your Russo's etc. - and then debating / challenging them on their views.

Anyway, I'll climb down off my soap box now. Sorry.

The people calling them Nazis are the real Nazis. If you say you're English now you can be arrested and jailed. 

Your post is a huge win in the battle of ideas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Snitsky's back acne said:

All 'no-platforming' Russo

Just so we're clear, this has not happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Marshmallo said:

The people calling them Nazis are the real Nazis. If you say you're English now you can be arrested and jailed. 

Your post is a huge win in the battle of ideas. 

Thank you for your input. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...