I've been getting back into pro wrestling recently. It's as much fun as I remember being, and sorta reminds me of being a wee lad. However, considering how hilariously macho it is, and the fact that a good chunk of wrestlers and fans are from the south, there is a really strong(but not openly expressed) veing of homophobia. I saw a video of some guys eating in a Japanese restaurant in SF after an event, talking about how the west coast is "Where they gays are proud to be gay" and someone responded "At least as proud as they can be."
It's definitely not the most progressive of groups of like-minded individuals.
However, I then read this article which made me goddamn proud. And made me a fan of CM Punk's.
http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2012/0507/55242…
The tl;dr - he was posting on twitter about how he thought it was fucked that North Carolina passed the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Someone responed that "homo's make me sick." CM Punk responded by saying "kill yourself."
http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2012/0507/55242…
The tl;dr - he was posting on twitter about how he thought it was fucked that North Carolina passed the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Someone responed that "homo's make me sick." CM Punk responded by saying "kill yourself."
A bit of an overreaction. However, seeing how biased and fucked up the other athletes are that he's around day in and day out, and seeing that kind of blatant, fucked up bigotry being espoused like it's perfectly ok non stop? I think his response was totally vindicated, it not acceptable (which I will admit, it likely wasn't).
And thinking about this made me think about another thing - where is the line between saying "everyone has their own opinions and their own views" and "that opinion is clearly fucked up and degrading to society and the existence of others." Because, really, when something like gay marriage (or interracial marriage, or not being a member of the state church etc.) is no longer illegal, it IS saying that one opinion is wrong, that one group was being bigoted and fucked up, to one extent or another.
Is this a door that anyone wants to be opened? The idea that someone could be completely in the wrong can be spun, and strongly. People from a very reliigious/conservative background could just as easily say that by allowing such a thing would harm society, and that the act is wrong and all that, and that by allowing it it would harm society. I mean, they do already. But, should that stance be maintained, this dichotomy between this side's wrong or that side's wrong? And if so, and since that is already how it is framed to a certain extent, why should intolerance be met with acceptance?
It's like that joke - The only thing I'm intolerant of is intolerance.
I suppose the only answer I can think of is that by making it a "you're wrong and fucked up and stupid" argument between two sides is that it makes having people change their mind a whole lot more difficult. And if you believe you are right, then you probably also believe that people will come to understand your opinion, and why you're right (even if it is a slow, uphill process). And it is better to make allies and eventually win the war than it is to win most battes, lose allies, and eventually lose the war.
As an interesting addendum -
http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2012/0507/55242…
http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2012/0507/55242…
Apparently, CM Punk called a fan a homo at a house show (a show that wasn't televised). This is interesting, because it raises the question of whether or not you can be a tolerant person while still using language that either is, or appears to be, intolerant. I say appears to be, because I'm not 100% convinced every single utterance of "homo" or "faggot" is always inherently biggoted, or meant to bring to mind the concept of homosexuality. And, I personally cannot think of a way to test whether or not this is so on a wide scale (though I stopped using "gay" and the various derivatives as general derogatory terms because of a test I did on myself), so I don't know.
But, here's one more interesting confound - I don't know what his "character" was at the time. That is, in pro wrestling, every major wrestler is either a "heel" or a "face", a bad guy or a good guy, respectively. Now, if you think of pro wrestling as extremely physical improv theater that imitates a sporting event, and all participants are either clearly good guys or clearly bad guys, if he was playing a bad guy and said something awful to a fan, would it be so bad? If this were traditional theater, with a pinch of improv and crowd interaction, if an extremely villainous character called a fan/viewer a homo, would it be an issue? This point is also really important, because if you watch videos of CM Punks time in the indy circuit, where the crowds were tiny, and didn't necessarily know the wrestlers, he was well known for fan-baiting. He would just talk shit on the crowd, tell them how much they sucked, etc. Just to get the crowd to dislike him and get them more into the show and the ethos and pathos and all that shit of it (except not logos, cause pro wrestling sure as fuck isn't logical).
