Board 8 > All-Purpose Wrestling Topic 441: Cena's Engagement Kicks Out at 2.

(+) Yeah! (+)

The last analogy was pretty good but you're still trying to twist our arguments so
---

HashtagSEP posted...

Like, picture a store that doesn't sell alcohol. And they pride themselves on not selling alcohol and market that fact, and it attracts a specific kind of customer that sees it as a wholesome store worth shopping at since they don't sell alcohol.

And all the time they're advertising "Shop at Wholesome Mart, we don't sell alcohol!" and "Look at all we've done in remaining wholesome and avoiding the temptations of selling alcohol!"

But then suddenly, Wholesome Mart hears that Drunk Gary is coming into town. And Drunk Gary loooves his alcohol. So, suddenly, they go

"We don't sell alcohol here at Wholesome Mart! But this coming Tuesday, Drunk Gary is coming to town. And Drunk Gary fucking looooves alcohol and spends a loooot of money on it. So this Tuesday, we're going to sell alcohol so we can make a lot of money off of Drunk Gary. But, hey, Drunk Gary is making moves to sober up, so in the future, Sober Gary can freely shop at Wholesome Mart where we don't sell alcohol! Except this Tuesday. We're selling alcohol this Tuesday."

Sure, there's a long term goal of getting a customer relationship out of Drunk Gary so that he continues being a customer when he becomes Sober Gary. But it's still hypocritical as fuck to feed into Drunk Gary's desires when he's Drunk Gary and sell alcohol to him, even for a day, when you try to pride yourself on and sell your self to the public on your wholesome, alcohol-free image. And then by the time Drunk Gary has become Sober Gary, people should rightfully be going "Well, they gave in to sell alcohol before, so why should we really believe their wholesome image, still?" and the amount of press they get for being a wholesome store will have likely decreased enough to make it not really be all that marketable anymore.

This is the best analogy yet. The rest of you should probably just quit talking about this now...

^

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1B-Vnpx2Ok" data-time="
---

HashtagSEP posted...

The last analogy was pretty good but you're still trying to twist our arguments so

Could you point out specifically how, without another analogy making the exact same point that basically amounts to "but hypocrisy!"
---

Hardcore_Adult posted...

^

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1B-Vnpx2Ok" data-time="

Reminder, this guy is literally making light at the mistreatment (to put lightly) of women in that hell hole.

The simple fact of the matter is that - "womens revolution" marketing or no - the WWE does not offer womens matches because of some sort of moral sense of equality between the sexes.

They offer them because they think the audience wants them and that it will make them more money than not offering them.

In this particular case, they're serving an audience that clearly doesn't want them, and that not offering them will make more money than insisting on them (and not getting this venue at all).

There's no hypocrisy here. It's always been about the money. Anyone who ever thought otherwise was being really dumb.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

The simple fact of the matter is that - "womens revolution" marketing or no - the WWE does not offer womens matches because of some sort of moral sense of equality between the sexes.

They offer them because they think the audience wants them and that it will make them more money than not offering them.

In this particular case, they're serving an audience that clearly doesn't want them, and that not offering them will make more money than insisting on them (and not getting this venue at all).

There's no hypocrisy here. It's always been about the money. Anyone who ever thought otherwise was being really dumb.

There's no ACTUAL hypocrisy there, no, because we know WWE's true motives.

But there's hypocrisy in how they try to present themselves.
---

But there's hypocrisy in how they try to present themselves.

I guess?

But like, not really anymore than the hypocrisy in how they try to present that John Cena is actually punching people when we know that he really isn't.

Womens Revolution is an angle. What's next? You gonna act shocked and appalled to find out The Undertaker isn't actually undead?
---

HashtagSEP posted...

SmartMuffin posted...

The simple fact of the matter is that - "womens revolution" marketing or no - the WWE does not offer womens matches because of some sort of moral sense of equality between the sexes.

They offer them because they think the audience wants them and that it will make them more money than not offering them.

In this particular case, they're serving an audience that clearly doesn't want them, and that not offering them will make more money than insisting on them (and not getting this venue at all).

There's no hypocrisy here. It's always been about the money. Anyone who ever thought otherwise was being really dumb.

There's no ACTUAL hypocrisy there, no, because we know WWE's true motives.

But there's hypocrisy in how they try to present themselves.

This....

How the fuck do you all not understand Sep?

XIII_rocks posted...

HashtagSEP posted...

The last analogy was pretty good but you're still trying to twist our arguments so

Could you point out specifically how, without another analogy making the exact same point that basically amounts to "but hypocrisy!"

I mean, your entire argument relies on WWE playing 4D chess in that Saudi Arabia will actually change in the near enough future that WWE can capitalize on it and go "See? Women performing on Saudi Arabia because of us!" when you equally have no idea what kind of deals have been made.

We're pointing out hypocrisy in how WWE wishes to market/present itself.

You're saying it doesn't exist based on conjecture.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

But there's hypocrisy in how they try to present themselves.

I guess?

But like, not really anymore than the hypocrisy in how they try to present that John Cena is actually punching people when we know that he really isn't.

Womens Revolution is an angle. What's next? You gonna act shocked and appalled to find out The Undertaker isn't actually undead?

I get the feeling from this post you were ok with the Eddie death exploitation....

I thought we pretty well argued this out the last time. What new information is continuing to egg you on.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

But there's hypocrisy in how they try to present themselves.

I guess?

But like, not really anymore than the hypocrisy in how they try to present that John Cena is actually punching people when we know that he really isn't.

Womens Revolution is an angle. What's next? You gonna act shocked and appalled to find out The Undertaker isn't actually undead?

There's a difference in that the Womens Revolution is an angle that they're actually trying to get over in actual media to paint themselves as a progressive company.
---

Even the "womens revolution" marketing I don't think has ever gone at it from the lens of "we're doing this because it's the morally right thing to do"

It's always been a lens of "we're doing this because these women are entertaining and can put on great matches!"
---

Well, uh, no, hypocrisy is acting differently than you present yourself. Like you guys are misusing the word by trying to say "how they try to present themselves" cause that's why hypocrisy is. And sure WWE is a very hypocritical company in a lot of ways-- and yeah we know WWE is all about that money first and foremost but that's generally not how they present itself.

This is just a more egregious example than the usual. Nothing much more to say than that.
---

What I mean is:

How is what I'm saying not an actual response, but instead some kind of "twisting" of what you're saying?

Would the only response that isn't "twisting" be to concede?
---

women's evolution*
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Even the "womens revolution" marketing I don't think has ever gone at it from the lens of "we're doing this because it's the morally right thing to do"

It's always been a lens of "we're doing this because these women are entertaining and can put on great matches!"

Well, they've also gone hard on the "The women deserve equal time and opportunities to the men and we're working toward that!" with stuff like the MITB, EC, and Royal Rumble.

This flies directly into the face of that.
---

lgnis posted...

Hardcore_Adult posted...

^

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1B-Vnpx2Ok" data-time="

Reminder, this guy is literally making light at the mistreatment (to put lightly) of women in that hell hole.

Hey, I was laughing the bit about drunk Gary.

*goes full Hugh Morrus on you* Hahahahaa!
---

XIII_rocks posted...

What I mean is:

How is what I'm saying not an actual response, but instead some kind of "twisting" of what you're saying?

Would the only response that isn't "twisting" be to concede?

Because your argument basically falls back on "This might work out in the future so it's okay" when we have actual reason to go "This is bad right now"

By all means, you can easily make your argument and go "See I'm right" if it actually happened. But you're basically trying to dismiss our points with something you have no idea is ever going to happen.
---

XIII_rocks posted...

Is it "take the money and run, fuck everything else"? I wouldn't rule it out. But you can't rule out "take the money and run, but negotiate for the women and get assurances about them competing at a later time" either, at this point.

This is basically giving them the benefit of a doubt for no reason at all though.

If anything they greatly weaken their negotiating position when they've shown they will fully bend the knee with zero concession whatsoever. Unless there's like, an announcement for a women's match for the next show or whatever there's no reason to assume this is how anything went.
---

And XIII, please let me be perfectly clear. I'm not saying you're wrong at all. You could be 100% right.

What I'm saying is that you kept initially twisting our points to mean that we were suggesting WWE go on this big morality crusade when we weren't. We were merely stating that this is not a good business decision for WWE right at this very moment if they wish to continue to market themselves as a progressive company.

That's not to say it can't pay off in the future. It's just to say that right now, there's no sign that they've even planned for the future, and thus it currently is hypocrisy based on what we know and how it appears to the media
---

Hardcore_Adult posted...

lgnis posted...

Hardcore_Adult posted...

^

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1B-Vnpx2Ok" data-time="

Reminder, this guy is literally making light at the mistreatment (to put lightly) of women in that hell hole.

Hey, I was laughing the bit about drunk Gary.

*goes full Hugh Morrus on you* Hahahahaa!

Fair enough. I apologize. I was the last post so I thought the arrow was to me, and condemning this evil company

HashtagSEP posted...

What I'm saying is that you kept initially twisting our points to mean that we were suggesting WWE go on this big morality crusade when we weren't.

Have I done that today, or are you carrying prejudices from the previous discussion into this?
---

boy will we feel silly if theres a surprise womens match, as the saudis really only wanted this event in the first place to announce they're becoming progressive
---

XIII_rocks posted...

(Which would be bullshit anyway because stuff like getting rid of the driving ban for women or allowing women to wrestle are covers for MBS to get the West on-side so they'll be less harsh on him for his campaign of Yemeni slaughter, but WWE don't care about that)

---

That's not to say it can't pay off in the future. It's just to say that right now, there's no sign that they've even planned for the future, and thus it currently is hypocrisy based on what we know and how it appears to the media

Those HHH quotes combined with the Abu Dhabi match indicate it's something they have at least discussed. It would be very easy to have not done Abu Dhabi. Saudi is more conservative so it'll take more time.

I'd be surprised if they don't move forward with this though, unless there's another coup - this isn't just baseless conjecture, and it's not just a business negotiation. It comes at a time when MBS is making specific moves to make Saudi look more palatable to the west. This would be one way of doing that, it's just another thing that's arguably too soon after the driving ban and changing too much too fast is a surefire way to trigger the aforementioned coup.

So yeah when I say "they will probably change in the future" that's not just because of my ideals or whatever but because politically it makes a lot of sense for Saudi at this moment in time.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

I think I asked this before, but I'm not sure if anyone answered.

If some random 2-hour network special occurred in some random location in the US and it happened to have zero womens matches on it, what percentage of the audience do you think would notice or find that objectionable or suspicious or whatever?

Probably not many

But a 5-hour show with not only 0 Womens matches, but also no women at all? No Renee, no Charly, no Jojo? I think more people would notice and think its weird
---

Speaking of which, the pre-show is gonna be a mess without Renee

Its gonna be Byron hosting a panel of Booker, JR, and Lawler
---

Maybe they run a program after this about the lack of women at GRR. Have one of the girls call out management on it

Hell have someone go after Paige for being in position to speak out, and have them feud with Absolution afterwards and have it end up with a match with Steph at summerslam
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Speaking of which, the pre-show is gonna be a mess without Renee

Its gonna be Byron hosting a panel of Booker, JR, and Lawler

at least there's JR?
---

I wish they would go back to letting Renee host Talking Smack. I miss that show so much. It was probably the most unique thing WWE put out in ages.
---

I dont know if youve noticed but JR kind of stopped giving a shit

Moreso in NJPW than WWE but still, hell have good analysis about people he knows like Trips vs Cena where he doesnt have to actually do any research but thats about it.
---

He's still good in what I've seen of the myc!
---

Yeah, he really made that complicated, unique single-elimination format much easier for us to understand.
---

Big Cass is doing great with this promo.

But holy shit his material is the god damn worst and he may be the worst character in WWE now.
---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

Big Cass is doing great with this promo.

But holy shit his material is the god damn worst and he may be the worst character in WWE now.

The fat girl....

The material is awful but I'm surprised how well he did with it
---

I can see him trying to channel Edge a bit and it kinda works
---

Im actually curious who wins this match

Common sense says IIconics pin Becky, but a two-match losing streak for Asuka?!?
---

WWE could just make a women only show to counter this and it would solve all their issues.
---

Kinda wish we could get some background on Becky + Asuka

They literally have 0 history
---

2-Match losing streak for Asuka!
---

https://m.skybet.com/wrestling/wwe-greatest-royal-rumble/event/22115311

Go go Nicholas
---

LOL Gallows and Anderson just keep getting passed back and forth between AJ and Finn like kids of divorced parents
---

Jakyl25 posted...

LOL Gallows and Anderson just keep getting passed back and forth between AJ and Finn like kids of divorced parents

There should be a sitcom about this. Good Brothers desperately seeking a good father
---

https://twitter.com/sashabankswwe/status/988939512805052422?s=21

Damn, Sasha tell us how you really feel about what happened
---

Wait...what?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/sashabankswwe/status/988939512805052422?s=21

Damn, Sasha tell us how you really feel about what happened

How can you not see she's making fun of Meltzer?

What the hell are you talking about?
---