WWE and Trump

[RedTwoster]

1 minute ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

 I like you genuinely which is what’s so annoying we’re having this discussion between us. I am more active on Twitter still than Bluesky because unfortunately most of the people I’m friends with there aren’t in the sunshine space. I hate it, which goes back to asking the question of where do you draw lines and how do you justify decisions because things are more complex at times. I don’t pay for Twitter like I don’t pay for anything WWE related but that doesn’t mean my hands are clean, and I don’t think that is the be all and end all.

It’s all good - we’re in broad agreement, I think - it’s just that just don’t think there’s much to take from Triple H being in attendance at this event. We’ve seen examples for years of wrestlers being socially liberal but fiscally conservative; although the Republican Party isn’t the same party it was pre-Trump. 

I think, to be honest, both WWE and AEW will continue to push a diverse range of wrestlers. Weirdly, in a way, the companies seem to operate outside of political discourse - when have we ever heard anyone suggesting a Black champion was champion because of DEI in the same way people yell about it when Ncuti Gatwa was named the new Dr Who? I can’t ever recall that happening; at least, not to the point it’s noticeable even in the swamp that is social media.

But what happens if that does start to happen? Maybe it doesn’t; but maybe WWE and AEW stop pushing certain wrestlers because of the political situation - would WWE hire Nyla Rose if she became available, for example? And does being trans affect her chances at a push in AEW these days for fear of a backlash?

I think it’s important that WWE and AEW - or, specifically, Triple H and Tony Khan - are asked where they stand on all of this, not just because Triple H and Tony Khan have links - albeit indirect ones - to the Trump campaign, but because minority groups face being discriminated against in the current, horrible political climate and it should be the job of journalists to make sure that doesn’t happen; and to find out where powerful figures in the entertainment industry stand on all of this.

[Chico Torres]

And descends into another WWE vs AEW thread between respective champions @RedTwoster and @Hannibal Scorch

I couldn’t give a shit about either company but there’s no equivalence here. It’s ok to call out the great Triple H as a cunt without it also being “but Tony…”

Also “I’m struggling to see the story here”….Jesus Christ.

[Hannibal Scorch]

13 minutes ago, FUM said:

Yes. I imagine it’s fairly standard to have family there.

Come on, I know a lizard wearing someone else’s skin when I see it!

[RedTwoster]

35 minutes ago, Chico Torres said:

And descends into another WWE vs AEW thread between respective champions @RedTwoster and @Hannibal Scorch

I couldn’t give a shit about either company but there’s no equivalence here. It’s ok to call out the great Triple H as a cunt without it also being “but Tony…”

Also “I’m struggling to see the story here”….Jesus Christ.

I’ve ignored you in previous threads when you’ve made similar comments, but I’ll respond on this occasion. 

Firstly, you’re accusing me of being tribal - you’re the one making it WWE vs AEW. Believe it or not, there are times when it’s perfectly logical and relevant to mention both companies. I don’t think Triple H being at this event tells us much, and I don’t think Tony Khan being the son of a Trump donor tells us anything either - but I do think both should be grilled about the current political climate. That’s not what-aboutism, that’s genuinely what I think. 

I don’t think you can have a conversation about Trump and wrestling without bringing both companies into the mix. It’s a worrying time in world history, and the potential for discrimination to become acceptable is very much there - or for either company to think twice about a push or appointment in case there’s a backlash from bigots. 

As for being ‘WWE’s champion’ - that really shows me that you’ve not paid much attention to my posts. I was a big champion of AEW in its early years, and I still enjoy it. I enjoy WWE’s men’s division much more than AEW’s right now, but AEW’s women’s division pisses all over WWE’s right now - it’s great. I prioritise stories over good wrestling on its own, and that’s what shapes my tastes. I actually enjoy AEW’s style of wrestling much more than WWE’s, but if I’m into a storyline, that matters more to me. But all of that is very much off-topic.

[Devon Malcolm]

2 hours ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

If you only want to cancel certain things based on what you can or can't live without anyway, then I'd say that's not true outrage. That's a fad diet of performative activism.

This is such utter rubbish, daz, that I'm amazed that even you posted that. And I mean that as regards our clear political differences. It's just nonsense.

[FLips]

This thread is even worse than the title would suggest.

One of the worst parts of Off-Topic colliding with one of the worst things in On-Topic.

[Chico Torres]

5 minutes ago, RedTwoster said:

I don’t think Triple H being at this event tells us much

It really does.

[SuperBacon]

20 minutes ago, FLips said:

This thread is even worse than the title would suggest.

One of the worst parts of Off-Topic colliding with one of the worst things in On-Topic.

Let's just be glad I've never bothered looking into crisp manufacturers and their ties...

 

[DavidB6937]

It's impressive that this topic actually managed to go even lower than my expectations.

[d-d-d-dAz]

29 minutes ago, Devon Malcolm said:

This is such utter rubbish, daz, that I'm amazed that even you posted that. And I mean that as regards our clear political differences. It's just nonsense.

I don't think it is, I think if you only filter out the things you can live without anyway then they isn't a deeply held belief. 

I've got a lot of time for people that really, properly boycott things based on their beliefs. That takes real conviction and, whatever the issue - whether its one I support or not - I really admire that level of commitment 

Choosing to avoid things that don't really impact you, or you're happy to do without, that's not a moral stance. Or if it is its a weak one and not worth it. If you're money is going to fund something you abhore anyway, don't then take a stand because you don't watch a particular show that actually you didn't really like anyway and don't really watch most the time.

I think people have sort of misunderstood my position here, or more likely I've put it across terribly. But I'm not pro-Trump, I'm just completely unmoved by the knowledge that an obviously right wing man supports an obviously right wing government. And if Vince being the literal devil didn't stop me watching Wrestlemania and calling Seth Rollins a plonker, this isn't likely to.

I'm not supporting or justifying. I'm just saying the WWE have been a moral black hole for a very long time and here we all are. Clutching our pearls that Triple H was at a Trump event is disingenuous, as its not hugely surprising and is actually perfectly in character and we've all been watching anyway.

[Devon Malcolm]

10 minutes ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

I don't think it is, I think if you only filter out the things you can live without anyway then they isn't a deeply held belief.

Come on daz, there are all manner of reasons why people may have to continue to use or fund services or products that they really don't want to. I'm 99% sure you know that and I'm struggling to understand why you're choosing not to admit that.

[Chico Torres]

Seriously…like “I guess you really don’t care about the genocide in Gaza because you’re still using an iPhone!”

[d-d-d-dAz]

18 minutes ago, Devon Malcolm said:

Come on daz, there are all manner of reasons why people may have to continue to use or fund services or products that they really don't want to. I'm 99% sure you know that and I'm struggling to understand why you're choosing not to admit that.

Not with consumer products, no. I don't really agree. There's a significant amount of choice in most consumer goods, and most people don't *need* to use their personal Amazon, Google or Meta accounts, for example. There are alternatives.

Equally, I'm not really for those people that sneer at left wing people for having Apple products either. Providing those people haven't tried to loudly make out they're overly virtuous about those things.

I'm uniquely and specifically disinterested in people that make a loud stance about an issue and don't back that up with real, sweeping action, and try and be selective in how they apply their rage so as to limit the impact on their lives. Like I say, that's 'hunger strikes except for biscuits' to me.

If the issue here is Trump, which I totally get, then focusing solely on WWE just doesn't make sense to me. They've done morally worst things this year, nevermind over the past few decades. I just don't get how this is anyone's breaking point, or why WWE would be unique in attracting anyone's ire when the entire corporate world is currently touching its toes for right wing populists across the globe.

[d-d-d-dAz]

14 minutes ago, Chico Torres said:

Seriously…like “I guess you really don’t care about the genocide in Gaza because you’re still using an iPhone!”

No, not at all.

But if someone say is very vocal about making a stance about boycotting Starbucks because of Gaza, but continues to use their iPhone; primarily because they can live without Starbucks coffee but like their phone? Yeah I think that's pretty disingenuous.

Have the humility in that instance to quietly boycott. Selective outrage isn't outrage, it's performance.

Like I say, I've all the time in the world for people who live their convictions and follow through with their boycotts.

I'm acutely aware that people rarely agree with me politically here, despite the fact that it's never really the issues.. just my general distaste for categorising the other side as cunts, or for performative outrage, or boycotts without any real substance. So I'm going to shut up. I really like this forum and the people on it, so I don't think continuing to circle the drain shouting opinions you all think are wrong is necessarily helpful.

Edited February 14, 2025 by d-d-d-dAz

[Devon Malcolm]

7 minutes ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

Not with consumer products, no. I don't really agree. There's a significant amount of choice in most consumer goods, and most people don't *need* to use their personal Amazon, Google or Meta accounts, for example. There are alternatives.

I have an autistic daughter whose weekly routine absolutely always involves having a McDonald's on a Sunday. For obvious reasons, I don't want to give them any money anymore. What would you do in my shoes?