El-P

Mask don't look good on TV. Testing is for weak people. I'm sure Vince can drink a glass of water with one hand while Brucie is clapping.

This.

Satin is salty.

Holy shit, the light green board !

The real mistake Kitao did was signing with UWF-I and taking that match with Takada...

It comes from their sumo days. Kitao had reached the rank of Yokozuna (despite winning 0 basho, but that's another issue), so he was at the very top of the hierarchy. During his days of sumo, I don't think Tenta reached much better than lowly Maegashira (which is still quite a feat especially for a foreigner at that time), so needless to say not in the same ballpark at all. Kitao saw Tenta as below him because of that, and wasn't gonna do the job nor sell for him. That and Kitao being a complete prick.

It comes from Omega on a previous episode of BTE telling Page that the Bucks were "Christians as fuck !" because they would not come with them have a drink (of milk, for Omega, of course, but still).

Ok, thanks for clearing that point, like I said I haven't read every story (because after a while, it's just too damn depressing). Ok, so there's clearly an issue here and you can't possibly just say "but there was consent". Whatever the case, it was completely unethical to begin with. (and yeah, the intoxicated part only makes it worse on many levels)

Well, if there was consent, then it is legal and it's nobody's business, period. The issue here is that the woman says there was no consent while Scurll says there was. It's word vs word, basically. So once again, I love people who *know* what happened because they read stuff on Twitter and others who are going all "yeah but morality !" when it is not the issue. If a crime was commited (rape), then it's a crime and should be punished by the law. If there was consent, then it's legal and no one has anything to say, really. Now, if people want to say that 16 years old shouldn't be a legal age of consent, whatever, but that's a totally other debate and it's way complex and idiots on Twitter aren't gonna discuss that matter. Whether it's right or wrong that 16 is the age of consent in the UK is not the issue here. The issue is : rape or no rape. Of course, where it's getting even more complicated is that one could argue that the age difference (when was that, I don't even know so I'm not sure of what the difference was) played a part is getting "consent" where there should not be. I have not followed that story, I don' know if she was a trainee, a fan or whatever, but from that perspective, it can definitely play a part in the fact the relationship wasn't consented. Or maybe Scurll thought that it was (mistake and ignorance). Or maybe Scurll pushed so that it "was" (manipulation and sexual abuse). So many things we don't know, that are complex, and as of now, this comes down to word vs word.

The problem is that it is probably the tip of the iceberg. Those are the stories that are told, not all the stories. We haven't heard from the most proficient female performers and there's probably a good reason for that, sadly. I saw a Tweet by RVD who was saying he believes these are about 5% of the stories and that most won't be told. Hopefully it won't stop there, but it will take a whole lot more than this. The Joey Ryan thing is by far the worst and it's so awful. Apparently everyone in his entourage is shocked as hell. This is a thing with those people, they are very good at moving in the shadows and pretending to be someone other that what they are. This is so awful for everyone involved, really (probably hits me the hardest because I legit enjoyed this guy, so now I feel like I need to take a shower every time I even hear his name, and really thus far it's by far the worst case of all).

In others news, Omega & the Bucks are not releasing BTE this week. Apparently they also have deleted the episodes in which Joey Ryan was appearing. I have not checked, but I can tell the "Wrestlers on the road" episode with Ryan is indeed gone.

Well, that's pretty clear-cut. Good. Also, Ethan Page once again comes off like a really good guy, which is nice to see.

Also, thoughts for the friends and former partners who trusted him and did not know about his actions, who must feel like shit right now in a mix of feeling totally betrayed, maybe guilt of not having seen it and whatnot. This is just awful on so many levels.

I was actually thinking the exact same thing. It's appalling.

By micro-context I rather meant a singular situation of interaction, not something like another macro socio-cultural (or economical) context like say "pro-wrestling" (which is still macro). Basically, two people in a room discussing, to take the simplest, most basic one. And from there it's full of tons of elements constituting the situation of interaction, which can indeed take in account a relationship of power and domination (a boss and his employee, a trainer and his trainee), but not necessarily. But anyway, this discussion was basically moving away from the matters at hand here as I was making a much more general remark about how "She's super hot" was not problematic in itself. Of course that's really neither here nor there considering what was said in the discussion in question ! *gasp* Fucking hell indeed. Way to make me feel shitty about having both enjoyed and defended this guy's work before.

I'll add this and end with the linguistic shit because enough is enough already (). Language is a two-way street. There's coding and there's decoding. And the individual coding is not necessarily responsible when there's something faulty in the decoding. Basically what I'm getting at here is that : people who get offended always think they are justified because of their emotions, but sometimes, the reality is that people are offended but they are in the wrong. But because they are guided by their emotions, they can't accept this fact (and again, it's human, we ALL do this). Because you (or me) are offended by something doesn't mean that you (or me) are necessarily right to be offended. Sometime you (or me) are making a mistake. And it's not easy to see because emotions, especially negative emotions, are very strong, and we always rather be right anyway. Ok, out with the linguistics and cognitive bias talk. My brain is gonna fry any minute now !

In a vacuum, words don't mean anything. They're just a symbolic system. So yeah, there's no "bad word". And when you say we live in specific context, yes, but there is not one single context, there's thousands of differents contexts (we could call them micro-contexts) made of thousands of different elements inside which the language is produced. To reduce those infinity of contexts to the specifics of "patriarchal society in which women are objectified" (which is not wrong, per say) is locking the entirety of language into a grid of interpretation that does not necassarily applies to the conditions (when, how, where, to whom, by whom etc...) of production of the proposition (whatever it is, in this case "She's super hot"). I hope it's a bit clearer now, but again I apologize if it's not as I'm trying to express notions that are quite a bit complex already in my native language and I may not use the right/exact technical linguistic terms in English.

I legit laughed at that one. Ok, first of all, thanks for the transcript, one hell of a job. I just wanted to add that Meltz said that the Corny accusation seemed suspect to him, although he had no idea if they were true or false. He mentioned the fact that with all the enemies Corny has in the business today, if grooming had happened, it's probable other people would have jumped in following that sole accusation. And it's a pretty good point. Shitting on Corny in 2020 is not gonna cost you any job nor make you a bad guy in the community, there's no risk of that sort here (contrary to all the young women who are currently talking about co-workers/trainers). Reading this transcript, I must say, although it's pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, that I think Corny is making a pretty case of defense for himself, honestly. And either way, people who have called Corny a "pervert" because he's a swinger, really, fuck you people. Or go get fucked, that'll suit you good. "Kink shaming" is pretty accurate. As long as it's consensual between adults and there's no power play involved, whatever people do in their sex life is nobody's business. Fucking intolerant normies.

Totally agree. Indeed. No idea about the self-checked, but people are way overreacting to the "Wished all the best". First, and since we're deeply into linguistics here (fuck my science language research mastered ass), this is a very formal politeness kind of statement. We all have joked enough about WWE's infamous "wish you the best" stuff. It doesn't convey any kind of warm or friendly feeling at all. Plus, the guy is going in rehab. Better this than nothing (unless actual charges are filed). So, they are addressing a guy with mental issues. Ok, what are they supposed to say ? "Go fuck yourself on rehab, you dick !" . So, wishing him to get better while he's gone anyway for the time being and not so sure he'll be brought back when he's out (then there's the whole "what does rehab do on short term, really, issue that has been talked about earlier on). I mean, nothing to get mad about, really.

Well, you have not understood what I said. I said that the meaning of a proposition can't be deciphered in a vacuum. Language doesn't work in a vacuum. Language works in a context with a thousands elements to it which plays a role in human interactions. Using an ideologic grid to say that proposition X or Y absolutely refers to idea X or Y doesn't work. Now, you can say something in a certain context, with a certain intent and it can still be misunderstood by the person that proposition was intended toward (not even mentioning for instance someone for whom the proposition is *not* intended to but still hears it). Not that it is the fault of anyone. There's so many super complex issues at hands here, but I don't think this is the place for interactionist linguistics discussions (especially since I wouldn't be at ease developping on that topic in a language that isn't my own, as my English is good enough but not *that* good). What I'm saying is that you can't say that the proposition "She's super hot" is absolutely objectifying. Of course it can. As purely aesthetic judgement. Now, if you are saying that there can't be purely aesthetic judgement on how people look, well, I dunno what to tell you. Everybody does it all the time, men and women alike. And there's nothing wrong with that. No. Not at all. I'm sorry but this just isn't valid in any way shape or form. Now, "She's super hot" can absolutely be an inappropriate, objectifying or even worse proposition. But everything can be an horrifying proposition. Any word of any kind can be used to produce a godawful discourse. But there's no word or proposition in a vacuum that is absolutely anything.

I've gotta say this though, the Twitter crowd is insufferable.

Say what you will, that is an apology that reads like one.

Yeah, Meltz made that point about how that part of the culture, the whole "secret society", certainly helped to make things even worse. But yeah, it's all over the map. There's no "pristine". You, we, can just try to help make things get better. Or less worse.

Honestly it's not a pro-wrestling thing. Same scandal happened in figure-skating in France a few months ago. And other sports too. And basically where we don't hear about it is because people are still scared to talk. And that's only the tip of the iceberg because it's the entertainment industry (yeah, I put sport in entertainment) but it's the same thing everywhere. Abuse and domination. I know, this world sucks.

What if the first thing I say about one of my co-workers is "She's dumb as fuck." ? So that is ok. But "She's hot as fuck" isn't. I'm sorry but I eluded to this before and that's something I don't intend on developing much more here, but to me that has everything to do with a very conflicted relationship to everything relating to the body in society that is still very much ingrained in puritanism. And I won't go further because PWO. Plus and if I may, it's not how language works . "She's super hot" can definitely be objectifying as it can also absolutely not be, everything depends of so many elements : the intent put behind the proposition, the social context, the tone of the voice, whom it is said to, the relationship between whom is producing the sentence and who it is destined to, is the person referred to is present of not when it's been said, what is the relationship between the person who says it and the person referred to etc etc... There's no essentialisation of the language for ideologic purposes (even if the motives come from a good place). Ok.I thought for a moment that it was a "thing" or a trend with young boys to say "I wanna rape her" to basically say a girl was super hot or something, which would have been super disturbing to say the very least.