Dave Meltzer stuff

[Loss]

For two years after that, Dave was doing the passive aggressive, "Oh wait, I can't say that word anymore" thing until Irv Muschnick wrote an incredible letter to Dave basically telling him to use the word, deal with the criticism and stand by his choice or leave it alone.

[Grimmas]

 

2/1/88 WON: A reader criticizes Dave for calling a bad match an abortion. Dave explains that this is an insider term, but that there are other insider terms he does not use because they are offensive to minorities, so he will stop using this one as well.

 

It's nice to see that people bending over backwards to find things to be triggered by isn't just a recent phenomenon.

 

Really what a stupid, ignorant thing to say.

 

Calling a bad match an abortion is just plain stupid and I would be really pissed if I was reading that bullshit, especially if I was involved in an abortion or anything. Regardless of that, there is no need to use such stupid terminology.

[NintendoLogic]

What's ignorant is not knowing that abortion has been used in a non-medical context to describe artistic atrocities for centuries.

[Grimmas]

What's ignorant is not knowing that abortion has been used in a non-medical context to describe artistic atrocities for centuries.

Not anymore, because it's fucking stupid.

 

Even Dave Meltzer agreed and stopped using it.

[PeteF3]

Just for the record, I looked in the OED and it doesn't have any listing of "abortion" in that specific context. It's been used since the mid-1500s to describe the deaths of pre-born children.

[NintendoLogic]

Insomuch that I do honestly believe, there can be no place in the world, where such intolerable abortions, begotten of the sculptor’s chisel, are to be found in such profusion, as in Rome.

-Charles Dickens, Pictures from Italy

 

Of all the things to get worked up over, this is among the dumbest. It's up there with being offended by the world niggardly. In fact, Julian Bond put it best in response to the latter controversy: "You hate to think you have to censor your language to meet other people's lack of understanding."

[Grimmas]

Getting worked up and pointing out it's stupid to use certain terms is different, by the way.

[BrianB]

Getting worked up and pointing out it's stupid to use certain terms is different, by the way.

 

I personally find it amusing and colorful since it seems so out of left-field, randomly uses a typical divisive third rail controversy, and at the same time it's so hard to remotely take seriously comparing or calling a really bad wrestling match with an aborted fetus/murdered baby (depending on how you look at it.)

 

Good find though. Again, I'd stress how it seems Dave considers what he says or does outside of the newsletter as less formal, serious, and ultimately professional than what he does elsewhere. But it's still relevant for this conversation, and yes, Dave has posited some racially tinged opinions over the years that don't always square well with modern minds and eyes, and I'd argue are the more correct and informed minds and eyes.

[southofheavy]

 

 

 

Really what a stupid, ignorant thing to say.

 

Calling a bad match an abortion is just plain stupid and I would be really pissed if I was reading that bullshit, especially if I was involved in an abortion or anything. Regardless of that, there is no need to use such stupid terminology.

 

 

Doesn't bother me in the slightest, and I've used the term myself. Be pissed if you want, but having had one, use of the term in reference to a failed creative endeavor is pretty small stuff to me.

 

aborted fetus/murdered baby (depending on how you look at it.)

 

That, however, does bother me. It ain't murder.

[BrianB]

 

 

 

 

Really what a stupid, ignorant thing to say.

 

Calling a bad match an abortion is just plain stupid and I would be really pissed if I was reading that bullshit, especially if I was involved in an abortion or anything. Regardless of that, there is no need to use such stupid terminology.

 

 

Doesn't bother me in the slightest, and I've used the term myself. Be pissed if you want, but having had one, use of the term in reference to a failed creative endeavor is pretty small stuff to me.

 

aborted fetus/murdered baby (depending on how you look at it.)

 

That, however, does bother me. It ain't murder.

 

 

don't work yourself into a shoot. it isn't to me either.

[pol]

Totally back what Dylan said on Twitter.

 

Even Dave's coverage on MMA stuff, when something regarding race comes up, Dave goes on about the "race card", being so annoyed that people are "making things about race" and he seems to lack any nuance thought whatsoever on the intersection of race and sports. Him being annoyed about racism being brought up, as opposed to those who have had to live their whole lives dealing with it on a 24/7 basis is another clear example of white privilege. It's pretty embarrassing and disappointing.

 

Blaming this on people on Twitter overreacting or being "outraged" is also absurd. Dave is pretty bad when it comes to race, and he gets even worse when you question him about it. That's not a controversial point, at all, and those of us who are stating it aren't being dramatic or whatever.

 

Remember when he didn't understand why Jon Jones gets pulled over so much more than he does?

[JerryvonKramer]

The borderline-fanatical policing of language is the one sure-fire thing that is going to piss off people and make them an enemy rather than an ally in any debate. Why? Because it changes the terms of what is being discussed to something more around freedom of speech and linguistics than whatever cause it is on which you wish to focus.

 

For every one person who gets upset about someone using "abortion" in that vernacular way, the sort of policing they call for, and the sort of shutting down of creative uses of language etc., creates maybe ten, twenty, more (?) people who complain about political correctness. Because it becomes an issue about Liberty.

 

I feel quite strongly that this is a lesson that needs to be learned if people ever really want to advance whatever causes they are pushing, especially if it is one that requires any degree of popular support.

 

Pick and choose the right battles. Getting annoyed over calling a match an "abortion" probably isn't the right battle.

[Loss]

Set aside the issue of comparing a bad match to an aborted fetus. It's idiotic to compare a bad wrestling match to a medical procedure. It bugs me mainly because it seems like an attempt to paint a bad match as something traumatic. It's not. It's just a bad match. It has no bearing on the viewer's life beyond just having watched a bad match. The end.

 

I'd also say that there is this idea that "language policing" somehow prevents people from speaking freely. That's ridiculous. This misguided idea that freedom of speech means shelter from critique of words has to go. In most cases, it seems like the people who are being policed are the people who point out the offensive thing, but the argument is re-framed in reverse. People do it so intrinsically at this point that I'm not even sure they realize it's happening.

[JerryvonKramer]

Right but which hill are you going to die on? The "let's call Christmas the holiday season" sort of stuff gives fuel to the fire and lessens the impact of much more important hills. If you police that stuff too tightly people resent it, and then it makes it all too easy to fall back on those same defences in more serious cases.

 

Just saying that a little more pragmatism would help it a whole lot. Until that time, just giving right-wing newspaper a lisence to print money with their columns of righteous indignation about the "thought police". Do it enough and you literally get Trump. Or Brexit.

 

Gotta face up to the world we live in, before we can build the world we want to live in. Don't think you can bring people on side by calling them out on perceived transgressions all the time. Breeds resentment. Just my take.

[Fando]

it seems like an attempt to paint a bad match as something traumatic

 

 

May not make a difference but "monstrous" or "messy" would be closer to how I often see it used outside of the actual medical context.

[Loss]

But what you're advocating is a form of action policing in itself. And who gets to decide which hills are important? They usually target minorities, which means there's a disproportionate impact. That's in a way the entire point. Wingnut cottage industries will exist whether anyone gives them legitimate ammunition or not.

[Loss]

 

it seems like an attempt to paint a bad match as something traumatic

 

 

May not make a difference but "monstrous" or "messy" would be closer to how I often see it used outside of the actual medical context.

 

 

Fair point. If we're talking in those terms, I'd say that a bad match is acute.

[JerryvonKramer]

But what you're advocating is a form of action policing in itself. And who gets to decide which hills are important? They usually target minorities, which means there's a disproportionate impact. That's in a way the entire point. Wingnut cottage industries will exist whether anyone gives them legitimate ammunition or not.

I dunno, but overt racism, homophobia and sexism seem to me to be more important issues to tackle than Christmas, calling matches "abortions" or using gender neutral terms in innocuous places.

 

It seems to me important not to piss off large swathes of normal people when the first set of issues are still far far from being sorted. The second set of issues encourages general eye-rolling, and makes it easier to reduce the first set to that same level. Worse it pushes simmering resentment under the carpet, and I'm convinced that that is part of some of the far-right political movements we are seeing in UK and USA right now. Campaigns being run on basically racism.

[ohtani's jacket]

Just for the record, I looked in the OED and it doesn't have any listing of "abortion" in that specific context. It's been used since the mid-1500s to describe the deaths of pre-born children.

 

The OED says:

 

"2 An object or undertaking that is unpleasant or badly made or carried out.

Example sentences:

‘He didn't bring up one single argument in respect to the abortion of a budget that was tabled this year.’

‘My introduction to advertising came to consist of thinking up such abortions as banana creme topping.’"

[Loss]

 

But what you're advocating is a form of action policing in itself. And who gets to decide which hills are important? They usually target minorities, which means there's a disproportionate impact. That's in a way the entire point. Wingnut cottage industries will exist whether anyone gives them legitimate ammunition or not.

I dunno, but overt racism, homophobia and sexism seem to me to be more important issues to tackle than Christmas, calling matches "abortions" or using gender neutral terms in innocuous places.

 

It seems to me important not to piss off large swathes of normal people when the first set of issues are still far far from being sorted. The second set of issues encourages general eye-rolling, and makes it easier to reduce the first set to that same level. Worse it pushes simmering resentment under the carpet, and I'm convinced that that is part of some of the far-right political movements we are seeing in UK and USA right now. Campaigns being run on basically racism.

 

 

I don't disagree with the basic premise of what has fueled the rise of far right candidates, but I also don't think that such movements are empowered by this stuff. They are empowered by economic realities and changing cultural norms. Arguments about word policing are just superfluous appetizers used to enhance the message.

[BrianB]

 

 

But what you're advocating is a form of action policing in itself. And who gets to decide which hills are important? They usually target minorities, which means there's a disproportionate impact. That's in a way the entire point. Wingnut cottage industries will exist whether anyone gives them legitimate ammunition or not.

I dunno, but overt racism, homophobia and sexism seem to me to be more important issues to tackle than Christmas, calling matches "abortions" or using gender neutral terms in innocuous places.

 

It seems to me important not to piss off large swathes of normal people when the first set of issues are still far far from being sorted. The second set of issues encourages general eye-rolling, and makes it easier to reduce the first set to that same level. Worse it pushes simmering resentment under the carpet, and I'm convinced that that is part of some of the far-right political movements we are seeing in UK and USA right now. Campaigns being run on basically racism.

 

 

I don't disagree with the basic premise of what has fueled the rise of far right candidates, but I also don't think that such movements are empowered by this stuff. They are empowered by economic realities and changing cultural norms. Arguments about word policing are just superfluous appetizers used to enhance the message.

 

 

Except that the only thing you'll ever get from a Trump supporter that comes out as pro-him for something is often how much they despise political correctness and want it go away. (Which incidently only seems to re-enforce Parv's point about picking poorly choosing the hills they want to die on.) Social media, the rise of outrage, and the ease of recording has, imo, actually fueled the backlash. People have seen, read about, or heard enough stories of people getting into deep crap, losing jobs, getting humiliated, etc. because of things that they have said, which most people would've thought of as more private before. Yes, lots of that stuff is because people were actually behaving racist, sexist, homophobic, etc., but since it's almost impossible to get people to unanimously to agree on anything these days and there have been so many, it seems to me that quite a large number of people very much resent that that's just the new reality.

[Grimmas]

Right but which hill are you going to die on? The "let's call Christmas the holiday season" sort of stuff gives fuel to the fire and lessens the impact of much more important hills. If you police that stuff too tightly people resent it, and then it makes it all too easy to fall back on those same defences in more serious cases.

 

Just saying that a little more pragmatism would help it a whole lot. Until that time, just giving right-wing newspaper a lisence to print money with their columns of righteous indignation about the "thought police". Do it enough and you literally get Trump. Or Brexit.

 

Gotta face up to the world we live in, before we can build the world we want to live in. Don't think you can bring people on side by calling them out on perceived transgressions all the time. Breeds resentment. Just my take.

That line of thinking means we should still use the n word or using gay as an insult.

[Grimmas]

Also people being pissed about political correctness is often a shield about them being pissed off they are being called out on being a bigot or racist or whate whatever.

[JerryvonKramer]

I'm getting out of this now, disinclined to discuss further. But Grimmas's response to me -- a moderate, liberal centrist -- here is half of the problem. And until people can see why I don't think there'll be much progress on this particular issue.

[BrianB]

Also people being pissed about political correctness is often a shield about them being pissed off they are being called out on being a bigot or racist or whate whatever.

 

It is often. But it's not always.

 

 

Right but which hill are you going to die on? The "let's call Christmas the holiday season" sort of stuff gives fuel to the fire and lessens the impact of much more important hills. If you police that stuff too tightly people resent it, and then it makes it all too easy to fall back on those same defences in more serious cases.

 

Just saying that a little more pragmatism would help it a whole lot. Until that time, just giving right-wing newspaper a lisence to print money with their columns of righteous indignation about the "thought police". Do it enough and you literally get Trump. Or Brexit.

 

Gotta face up to the world we live in, before we can build the world we want to live in. Don't think you can bring people on side by calling them out on perceived transgressions all the time. Breeds resentment. Just my take.

That line of thinking means we should still use the n word or using gay as an insult.

 

 

If you can't make a distinction been words actually tied and interviewed with ideologies of oppression, histories of opposion, and the language of hierarchy...and stuff that is just more colorful and on the edge while still within bounds.