Why are current wrestling fans unwilling to criticize or make fun of anything in their favorite promotion? Is this the effect that a generation of online console warring has had on the emotional intelligence of predominantly low IQ, perpetually 12 year-old people (wrestling fans)? Why are so many people loyal to a logo?
because it immediately gets used by the other side
>>19158085kek holy shit. that's grim.
>>19158085But why would anyone care? It didn't always used to be like this. There was shit slinging back in the '90s and even during the '00s with WWE and TNA fans, which I witnessed firsthand, but it was never made to be a reflection of the viewer or a moral failing to like/dislike something in a fucking wrestling company. What caused this? Is it just a reflection of the general societal shift and the way most peabrain puritanical discourse is on the internet now? I'm not clued in to other manchild shit anymore like cartoons, video games & capeshit - but general film, literature and music dicussion (outside of pop stan shit) is not like this. It feels like the whole brand loyalty, weaponized morality stuff is mainly only a thing in retard entertainment.
online bantering is dead, nowadays every jabroni marks take everything seriously and work themselves into a shoot all the time
>>19158071>Why are so many people loyal to a logobrands as divinity
>>19158126I'm so glad that film discourse in particular is not really like this. People rightfully admonish and make fun of Roman Polanski, Woody Allen etc. but even the extremely online zoomers don't review bomb films from controversial figures and attempt to police people who just want to buy a Buffalo '66 Blu-ray.
>>19158126>There are a few overlapping reasons why people online overreact to everything and casual banter (especially the kind that used to define fandoms or forums) has died out>Nowadays online platforms have no shared culture, so tone and intent get lost>People now tie personal identity to the things they like. Criticizing, roasting or simply poking fun at them feels like a personal attack to mostIf you have the patience to peel down all the nonsense GPT can answer sociological stuff quite simply. It’s the erosion of identity due to terminal internet obsession, something Umberto Eco already warned us about
>>19158187>Buffalo '66Based
>>19158127/thread
>>19158217>ywn span time with christina ricciwhy even live?
>>19158233daily reminder she has a big bush
>>19158248Is that supposed to be a bad thing?
>>19158921I sure as fuck hope not.
>>19158921no, that's why I brought it up
>>19158071Because there's no grace any more. If you make fun of WWE, then AEW fans won't make fun of AEW, they'll make fun of WWE with you>See, even WWE fans think WWE is dog shit>Watch AEW insteadAnd vice versa. There's no point to it, there's no upside any more when you're surrounded by assholes.
>>19158938Based Mayu and her big hairy bush
Smark forums were always like this. It’s obvious that you zoomers weren’t on the forums back in the late 90s. WWF vs WCW shitflinging was all over the damn place. There’s just more fan autistic nerds now because Internet access is way more easy to access.
>>19159243yeah I wasnt, but late 2000s internet culture wasn't the sissy shit that is nowadays, people who couldn't take a banter were bullied into oblivion, and now they same jabroni marks who overreact everything are the main userbase of Twitter and Reddit
>>19159243I was. The complaint isn't so much about shit-slinging, it's the moral policing that's an issue. The performative activism in regards to watching your chosen favorite brand of carnival entertainment wasn't a thing. The shit slinging began and ended with the actual products, and people were genuinely more honest about what they liked and disliked. Nobody had to cope and embellish by saying Jillian Hall's singing gimmick was "generational heel work" because they were personally threatened by Awesome Kong in TNA.
