The WWE Global Territory System

I actually wrote this several years ago on Facebook, but I THOUGHT I'd posted it here as well. Apparently not. Well, with rumors of an NXT Japan on the horizon, I thought this would be a good time to share it:


The WWE Territory System

I realize I’m not the first to have the idea of WWE essentially creating their own territory system on a global level. There was a lot of this talk during the UK tournament a month or two ago. I’ve thought a lot about this, and I thought I’d chart out exactly how I imagine this works.

The territories

The United States will always be WWE’s home turf. That’s not going to change. With the establishment of the UK title, they’ve laid the groundwork for their next territory. The other two places I think would be the obvious choices for WWE territories would be WWE Mexico and WWE Japan. Both countries with very distinct, very legendary wrestling legacies.

The titles.

Each territory would have its own championships. The WWE UK title, the WWE Japan title, and the WWE Mexico title. The US, meanwhile, would have the US RAW and the US Smackdown! Title. Conspicuous by it’s absence of course is…

The WWE World Heavyweight Title

Want to really leave no doubt in anyone’s mind what the most prestigious title in the world is? Want to make the title really fit its name? Here’s how you do it. Just like in the NWA or AWA territory days, you’d have ONE world champion. A TRUE world champion. A TRAVELING champion. The world title would be defended 13 times every year. 3 scheduled title defenses for each territory. When the World Heavyweight Champion comes to defend his title in your territory, it’s a big deal. Particularly because if your territory’s top guy can’t get it done, you’re going to have to wait another four whole months, as it cycles through the other territories before you see it again. This gives you plenty of time to build up a challenger, but you don’t end up with a situation similar to when Lesnar was champ, where there’s no big title defense at your monthly PPV’s, because you still have your territory’s top title. And, of course, the world title is defended every single month; just not in the same territory.

The World Series of Wrestling

You may have noticed I said the world title would be defended 13 times a year, with 3 scheduled times per territory. Believe it or not, I’m actually pretty good at math. So how did I get 13? Because, for the first time ever, WWE would have an event that would rival even Wrestlemania in prestige: The World Series of Wrestling. 2 representatives would be sent from every territory. 1 night, 8 men, 7 matches, in a bracket-formatted single-elimination tournament. The winner gets a WWE World Heavyweight Title at a future event of their choosing (this isn’t Money In The Bank, they have declare it ahead of time).

The International Package

Every territory’s events would be viewable in their territory on TV, as well as on The WWE Network. Additionally, every WWE World Heavyweight Title match would be visible to everyone on The WWE Network, regardless of location. But what if you’re a wrestling super-fan? What if you live in America, but you want to see Japanese Strong Style? Simple. For a few extra bucks a month, you get full coverage of every territory. Basically, if you have a full-time job, you’d pretty much never run out of new content to watch.


I'd love to hear your thoughts!

The Fredericksburg Slave Block

For those who don't know, I live in Fredericksburg, Virginia. It's a historic city due to being a Civil War battleground in what was the heart of the confederacy. Something that's always made me ill-at-ease. I hate seeing the confederate flag. It represents not only one of the most shameful things about my great country's history, but it represents a nation which, for the entirety of its existence, was at war with The United States. And I urge anyone who still thinks that the civil war wasn't primarily about slaver to read The Cornerstone Speech, written by Alexander H. Stephens one of the founding fathers of the confederacy, who served as its vice-president for the entirety of its existence.

With that out of the way, I am extremely disappointed in something that I recognize as being done with the best of misguided intentions. For as long as Fredericksburg has existed, up until just last week, one thing has been the center of more controversy than anything else. A platform — at this point just a stump, really — with a sign explaining that it was once used for an auctioneer to sell slaves. It was the most uncomfortable thing I've ever seen. It was a horrible reminder of what went on in our little town. There has been debate for years over whether or not it should be removed and put in the local museum. And with the current protests and riots, that's exactly what happened.

And I think that's a step backwards. Many people compared the stump to confederate statues; which, for the record, I 100% support tearing down. But there was a crucial difference. Those statues were erected to honor confederates and the confederacy. To glorify those men and the things they did. The stump was simply a somber reminder that slavery wasn't just some fictional horror story. It wasn't something awful that happened in a far-off land. This was something that occurred right here, in our town. People were uncomfortable because it reminded them of that, and I say good. People should be reminded of what happened, and it should make them uncomfortable. That's the greatest safe-guard we have against something like that ever happening again.

Consider Auschwitz. A monument to the greatest evil of the 20th century. But people visit it. Jews visit it. Germans visit it. Students visit it. It's a horribly uncomfortable experience — as well it should be — but is there any serious debate about tearing it down? Of course not. Because reminding people of the truth, in a world where somehow some people still deny the Holocaust happened, is important. And it's just as important that in a region where southerners are told romanticized stories of their forefathers and how slavery wasn't a factor in the war that they be reminded that it was a scourge in this region. 

Because I can't talk to anyone else in the world about this...

The number of white people who are telling me how angry I should be over race relations in my country is infuriating. I'm 41 years old, black and live in Virginia. Once the heart of the confederacy. Before the pandemic, I drove past rebel flags on a daily basis. I currently live 10 minutes away from an honest-to-God auction platform on which slaves were once sold. There's a sobering plaque and everything. I previously lived in a town with an active chapter of the KKK. The son of one of those members cracked my skull with a 2x4. I was literally the victim of a violent hate-crime. On top of all this, most people I meet think I'm middle-eastern. I'll let you guess what that meant in 2001 after 9/11. I get it. I don't need you to explain how people like me are treated. I have forgotten more about being the victim of racism than I hope most of you will ever know. I've never believed that one needs "qualifications" to be entitled to objective thought on any subject; but if such a thing is necessary, I have them for this one. 

And I am so tired of people whose entire identity is so wrapped up in being "woke" that anything that clashes with their world view is heresy, and anyone who speaks it it prejudice. I'm tired of people who will scream and shout about the importance of "black voices" and "privilege" and how "people need to listen," but the instant they don't agree with one of those voices, it all goes right out the window, because for all their talk about how much more "enlightened" they are than other white people because they've learned how to listen; all they really mean is that they're special, they know more, they understand better, and so clearly any reasonable minority voice will instantly agree with them. Which is really just the same shit that the people they're so angry at think; with just a slightly different flavor.

With all that out of the way, I do no not believe that things are as dire as they are made out to be. And there is evidence to support this that no one wants to hear because they are afraid that that mentioning it, let alone talking about it, means they're racist. Wanting to consider every side of an issue that inspires rage and violence and separates us...this isn't a sign of hatred, it's responsible thinking. And for the love of God, stop rioting. Destroying your own community, tearing down people's livelihoods, destroying the lives of INNOCENT people who had NOTHING to do with what you're angry about...it solves nothing. It benefits no one. All it does is make things worse. ORGANIZE! Identify exactly what it is you want and make demands! Then march! Protest peacefully! Demonstrate peacefully! Spread your demand peacefully! *nothing* that has happened justifies harming those who have done you no wrong. And no, "someone with the same skin color did me wrong" does not cut it. That's Klan logic. "I believe this person is benefiting from someone else's misdeeds even if he did nothing himself" doesn't cut it, either. Every man is responsible for his own actions and no one else's, save perhaps his children; to a degree. You cannot ignore this, ruin the lives of innocent people, and then claim the moral high-ground just because you're angry. No amount of rage - REGARDLESS of how righteous and deserved that rage may be - give  you the right to hurt others.


Groups, labels and affiliations.

I deny membership, alliance, affiliation or identification with any and all groups and/or movements of a political, social, or philosophical nature. I will not be defined by a hashtag, nor the words and actions of others. If you wish to know my thoughts, beliefs or feelings on a particularly subject, I will be happy to share them; but I will not self-identify with some label that will over-simplify my range of beliefs, nor will I throw my lot in with any group of people too large for me to know all of its members or adherents. The world of logic, philosophy and social discourse has seen more reasonable, intelligent points and arguments summarily dismissed due to the application of "guilt by association" of the speaker than any other reason. 

I can't stop you from dismissing what I have to say on any subject. But you're not going to do it because of something I do not believe, something I do not condone, something I do not stand for.

Hand-Me-Down Representation

An illustration in why I refer to sex/race re-casting as "hand-me-down representation."


People: We need more diversity! More representation!

Child: I’m cold, I need a coat.

Studio: We hear you. Tell you what, let’s take these roles which were originally written for white males and cast women and/or minorities! That way, we know it will succeed, because everyone loved it when white men played them!

Clueless mother: Tell you what, your older brother hasn’t worn this coat in a while, why don’t you wear this?

Fans of the original: why do you have to do this? Why can’t you just make something original that was designed for that group? We don’t want our classic series altered to fit your agenda.

Child: but mom, I’m a girl. That coat won’t fit me! It’ll look bad! Besides, it’s old and worn out already!

Studio: anyone who doesn’t like this is just sexist/racist. We’re not going to listen to people like that.

Clueless mother: now now, anyone who doesn’t like your coat isn’t really your friend. Now run along to school.

In theaters:

At school:

Collapse )

The Inevitable Cycle of Modern Social Movements

  

Phase 1: Recognition of a problem.

People are being discriminated against. A scandal has occurred. A company’s done something horrible. People decide something must be done. A name is given and a movement is formed.

Phase 2: Position is laid out intelligently

The reasoning is laid out. It’s made clear “this is who we are, this is what we oppose, this is what we want.”

Phase 3: some idiot mis-represents the movement

This is just another HATE movement! Its REAL purpose is prejudice! It’s to harass people!

Phase 4: Over-zealous extremists who identify with the movement retaliate

Someone decides that because their cause is just, they are then justified in doing anything and everything to further said cause, including harassing the idiots from phase 3, sending death threats, etc.

Phase 5: The zealots from phase 4 are now the face of the movement

It doesn’t matter why you started the movement. It doesn’t matter how correct your motives or how logical your arguments. Everything you say is going to be brushed aside and labeled the rantings of a hateful idiot, because you’re using the same label as the psychos from phase 4. Logic is deflected, intent is ignored, because it’s easier to just label you a nuisance.


          To be clear, the flaw in the social movement idea is not in the idea of social movement. It’s not what the social movement seeks to do – to bring people together under one banner to show wide-spread support or opposition to something. The flaw is simply in the name. The moment you give yourselves a name, you lump yourself in with eeeeveryone else who takes that name. And because social movements generally don’t have “membership lists” or any way to distinguish who IS and who is NOT a genuine “member,” that’s inevitably going to mean you’re lumped in with terrible people.

          The solution is simple. Don’t. Label. Yourselves. Oppose what you think is wrong. Stand up for what you think is right. If you believe there’s strength in numbers, great; find like-minded individuals. Quote them, share and exchange ideas. Just stay away from labels.  

Fate of The Furious

 

OMG This move

• None of those cars are capable of remote control.

• You’ve got his car stuck with your wenches…why are you not shooting out his tires? For that matter, why are his tires still functional with that much friction?

• ...here's the thing about stealing nuclear launch codes. First of all, you still have to give them to a human being capable of launching the nukes. And no, you can't hack the launch system. It's not networked. To anything. You have to contact someone at a launch station. You have to know HOW to contact someone at a launch station. And even if you DID that?

Guess what?

THE CODES CAN BE CHANGED. Yea. Congratulations, you stole something that's going to be worthless by the time you get back to wherever you're staying.

• How in God’s name is it that he just used an EMP that took out all the electronics in that entire base, and then took out the electronics in a sub that was specially insulated…but the electronics in his car, which the emp device was strapped to are perfectly fine? 

• And speaking of that sub, if they just fried all the electronics in it with an EMP, how are the immediately hacking into it afterwards? Not that they could actually do that even if it was functional but the entire point of the EMP was to take out its electronics. So what are you hacking?!

Let's talk about The Last Jedi

The story you could have told:

          After Leia was injured (in what by all rights should have killed her), Admiral Akbar, a character established in the original trilogy, a well-known, established character from many subsequent stories, takes over; making the subsequent death scene a dramatic meaningful moment, as it’s the end of a character with a forty-years history.

          But you needed yet another “strong female leader” character, so instead, the story you told:

          Akbar ends his forty-years history in a quick, meaningless off-screen death, to be replaced by a new character who doesn’t contribute enough to generate any real connection to the audience, ensuring that aside from the cool visuals of her stunt, no one really cares about her sacrifice.

          The story you could have told:

          Akbar has a plan to get the resistance to the nearby planet, and lets everyone know, as an intelligent leader would, but holds off as long as possible to allow Finn and Rose to complete their mission.

         But you needed to make sure the “strong female leader” character was portrayed as superior to the male characters, so instead, the story you told:

Collapse )

On the subject of "cultural appropriation"

    “Cultural appropriation” is the absolute DUMBEST complaint I’ve ever heard of. “It comes from my country so it’s mine.” Bull crap. Can you IMAGINE if a French woman told a black woman she couldn’t wear some high-fashion dress because “that is a French fashion, it’s MY culture?” Or if an Italian told a Latino chef he wasn't allowed to serve pasta at his restaurant because "that's ours?"
‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍ ‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍ ‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍Once upon a time, people were pressured and obligated to DROP the traditions, dress and habits of their home cultures and adopt ours, because their habits were "unAmerican." If they wanted to BE Americans, they needed to CONDUCT themselves like Americans. The reason that's no longer socially acceptable is because in the 20th century there was a social push to accept the concept of "multiculturalism." In multiculturalism, people become citizens of OUR culture, but still maintain a connection to the culture they came from. Under multiculturalism, you can't say "take that damned turban off, you're American now, act like it!" because America is the great melting pot; so wearing a turban IS American.
‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍ ‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍ ‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍ ‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍What these people refer to as "cultural appropriation" is ESSENTIAL to the concept of multiculturalism. It is the CORNERSTONE of the idea. Embracing, absorbing the cultures of the global community, that is how we as a nation BENEFIT from multiculturalism. The only way that benefits the nation as a *whole,* instead of just dividing us along cultural boundaries, is if we all *share* the myriad of cultures that make up this great landscape. The American ideal of multiculturalism isn’t “you stick to your culture and we’ll stick to ours and don’t you dare cross over.” The ideal is “we’re going to take what we love most about *every* culture, and make it a part of ourselves.”
‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍ ‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍ ‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍ ‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍What's worse is that this ridiculous, backwards ideology is completely COUNTER-productive to promoting racial harmony. You want someone to respect and appreciate people of another race? Immerse them those people's culture. Show them all the great things that COME from that race. This goes doubly for children. Who do you think's more likely to grow up to hate a particular race: a child who grows up participating in and immersing themselves in that race's culture, or a child who is told "no, you can't wear that, you can't cook that, you can't wear your hair that way, you can't celebrate that, you can't do that, because that's THEIR thing. You stick to YOUR race and YOUR culture?" This narrative is PROFOUNDLY damaging to racial harmony, and these stupid SJW's are too clueless to even realize what they're doing.